2025 PEMF Buyers Guide
What to Look for in a PEMF Device and What to AVOID!
Confused about which PEMF mat to buy? Call me for a Free PEMF Consultation 941-928-0124
What to Look for in a PEMF Device and What to AVOID!
Confused about which PEMF mat to buy? Call me for a Free PEMF Consultation 941-928-0124
PREFACE
Energy Medicine has been a passion of mine since 1995. But when I first saw how well PEMF worked on myself and others back in 2007, it has been my full-time focus for over 18 years now. In 2013, I published my first book, entitled PEMF: The 5th Element of Health, which has sold over 200,000 copies worldwide and is now translated into four languages. I have learned a great deal in the last 13 years since I wrote that book. This buyers' guide is a culmination of my 18 years of full-time experience with PEMF therapy, specifically addressing what to look for in a high-quality PEMF device and what to avoid.
Additionally, over the past 18 years, I have personally worked with over four thousand individuals to transform their lives using the power of PEMF. Many people have had life-changing experiences, and some have even had life-saving ones. I collected over 500 positive testimonials and have several dozen healing stories of my own. Whenever I have trouble sleeping, need more energy, get sick, hurt myself, experience any sort of pain or discomfort, PEMF is my #1 go-to energy medicine device. Honestly, I do not know how people can live without PEMF.
Having spoken to over 5,000 people during the past 18 years, it is clear that people are more confused than ever when searching for a high-quality PEMF device. Some PEMF machines have intensities that are so strong they cause your muscles to involuntarily contract, while others have low intensities that utilize resonance to relax and heal. Then there are other devices that use a medium intensity, falling somewhere in the middle. When it comes to waveforms, some PEMF devices use sine waves, others employ sawtooth waves, and still others utilize square waves. Then there are devices that have more complex waveforms. And PEMF coils and applicators come in all shapes and sizes. Some PEMF devices are small local applicators or coils, while others have full-body mats. Then there are all sorts of varying-sized coils, pads, probes, loops, and chair applicators. With all these possibilities, and the hundreds of PEMF companies claiming theirs is the best, who should we trust? With so much contradictory information available, this buyers' guide serves as a beacon to guide you on your path to finding the best PEMF device. Building on 18 years of research, I dedicated a year to creating this comprehensive 2025 buyers' guide, which is easily the best and only truly physics-based, research-based, and results-oriented PEMF buyers' guide available today. And with over 700 research references and college textbook physics, you can verify for yourself that what I am saying is true. I advise people to be skeptical and not to believe anyone blindly, including myself.
Energy Medicine has been a passion of mine since 1995. But when I first saw how well PEMF worked on myself and others back in 2007, it has been my full-time focus for over 18 years now. In 2013, I published my first book, entitled PEMF: The 5th Element of Health, which has sold over 200,000 copies worldwide and is now translated into four languages. I have learned a great deal in the last 13 years since I wrote that book. This buyers' guide is a culmination of my 18 years of full-time experience with PEMF therapy, specifically addressing what to look for in a high-quality PEMF device and what to avoid.
Additionally, over the past 18 years, I have personally worked with over four thousand individuals to transform their lives using the power of PEMF. Many people have had life-changing experiences, and some have even had life-saving ones. I collected over 500 positive testimonials and have several dozen healing stories of my own. Whenever I have trouble sleeping, need more energy, get sick, hurt myself, experience any sort of pain or discomfort, PEMF is my #1 go-to energy medicine device. Honestly, I do not know how people can live without PEMF.
Having spoken to over 5,000 people during the past 18 years, it is clear that people are more confused than ever when searching for a high-quality PEMF device. Some PEMF machines have intensities that are so strong they cause your muscles to involuntarily contract, while others have low intensities that utilize resonance to relax and heal. Then there are other devices that use a medium intensity, falling somewhere in the middle. When it comes to waveforms, some PEMF devices use sine waves, others employ sawtooth waves, and still others utilize square waves. Then there are devices that have more complex waveforms. And PEMF coils and applicators come in all shapes and sizes. Some PEMF devices are small local applicators or coils, while others have full-body mats. Then there are all sorts of varying-sized coils, pads, probes, loops, and chair applicators. With all these possibilities, and the hundreds of PEMF companies claiming theirs is the best, who should we trust? With so much contradictory information available, this buyers' guide serves as a beacon to guide you on your path to finding the best PEMF device. Building on 18 years of research, I dedicated a year to creating this comprehensive 2025 buyers' guide, which is easily the best and only truly physics-based, research-based, and results-oriented PEMF buyers' guide available today. And with over 700 research references and college textbook physics, you can verify for yourself that what I am saying is true. I advise people to be skeptical and not to believe anyone blindly, including myself.
Below is a list of all the PEMF devices I have owned, tested, dissected, and used extensively.
I have spent the last 18 years extensively researching PEMF, and in this process, I have had the good fortune to own, use, and test the 40+ PEMF devices listed below, ranging from $200 all the way up to $40,000. This list includes many, if not most, of the popular PEMF brands available in the U.S. This list is not a ranking but simply a statement of what I have owed, tried, tested and experienced arranged by the type of PEMF (Low, medium, high intensity, etc.). My top PEMF recommendations are now the Medium intensity Full Body Mats[1] as this buyers' guide will elucidate in a lot of scientific and research-based detail.
[1] As we'll see in chapter 5, medium intensity (1-10 millitesla or 10-100 gauss) has by far the most research and also the greatest biological effect for healing. Not too low, not too high, just right with medium intensity!
I have spent the last 18 years extensively researching PEMF, and in this process, I have had the good fortune to own, use, and test the 40+ PEMF devices listed below, ranging from $200 all the way up to $40,000. This list includes many, if not most, of the popular PEMF brands available in the U.S. This list is not a ranking but simply a statement of what I have owed, tried, tested and experienced arranged by the type of PEMF (Low, medium, high intensity, etc.). My top PEMF recommendations are now the Medium intensity Full Body Mats[1] as this buyers' guide will elucidate in a lot of scientific and research-based detail.
[1] As we'll see in chapter 5, medium intensity (1-10 millitesla or 10-100 gauss) has by far the most research and also the greatest biological effect for healing. Not too low, not too high, just right with medium intensity!
|
Lower Intensity Full Body
iMRS Prime Omnium 1 iMRS MRS 2000+ Designo Vitalife MRS 2000 Bemer 3000 Bemer Professional Centropix QRS 101 Pure Wave Lenyo Fractal Medithera Halo / Magnetosphere Lower Intensity Full Body [Cheap] Vasindux Pro Vasindux Pro+ OMI |
*Medium Intensity Full Body*
Spectra Apex HSR Magnetic Magic Celler8 Steeve Bradet DIY Mat MAS Sedona Biobalance (sine wave - not recommended) High Intensity AMP Coil/Doug Coil (Had to demo for a couple weeks) Magnapulse (Used) MG-33 (Used) Magnawave high intensity (rented for a month) Pulse XL top of the line high intensity (rented 3 months) Ondamed |
Hand Held/Portable PEMF
2xMicropulse/ICES A9/M1 Magnetic Magic Loop Earthpulse Sota Pulser Resona Vibe Pocket PEMF Qi COil Cheap Chinese Gemstone Mats Higher Dose Full Body & Small Pad Therasage therapro Kala Bon Charge 2 Popular Chinese Mats I am not allowed to name 2 Alibaba gemstone Mats similar to name brands Sparkle |
Why a Research-Based and Scientifically-Based PEMF Buyers' Guide is so Desperately Needed
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
—George Orwell, novelist and social critic
The PEMF industry is unregulated, and companies selling PEMF devices can make any claims they please in their marketing and sales pitches to influence people looking for a good PEMF device, thereby promoting their brand. It's truly a jungle where sales representatives, reviewers, affiliates, and influencers selling PEMF devices can make any claim they want to make a sale, often with wild and inaccurate statements and even outright lies. Because there is so much money to be made, many PEMF companies are so lawsuit "trigger-happy" that they cover their deceptions by suing anyone who says anything critical about their brand (even if it is true). As a result, I have decided not to provide individual reviews of specific PEMF devices online or in print, despite my initial desire to do so. Still, you CAN call me for a free consultation at 941-928-0124. On the phone, I can privately "sing like a canary" and "spill the tea" and tell you about which specific PEMF brands to get and which ones to avoid like the plague.
Sadly, the best marketed or best "reviewed" PEMF machines with the most paid high-profile influencers often win the battle over the actual best engineered (and clinically backed) PEMF devices. While your mind might be appeased, your body and cells care nothing about a good marketing pitch or bogus reviews that surround an inferior product! Avoid trusting review sites, Reddit threads (where I've found several fake profiles selling the brands they review), Facebook groups, and any online reviews, as the industry is being flooded with fake profiles on these platforms, as well as fake reviews and AI-written testimonials. And at best, positive reviews can be a placebo or a mental imagining.
You rarely hear what is most important in a PEMF device, which are the clinically backed parameters you need for PEMF to be effective. The heart of a PEMF device or PEMF therapy in general is the PEMF signal, which has been poorly characterized by most PEMF companies, influencers, and even researchers, if at all. This lack of clarity typically results from emphasizing less essential but widely cited parameters, such as frequency and intensity (measured in gauss), rather than focusing on those most relevant to biological effects. The essential characteristics of a PEMF signal are outlined below:
1. Magnetic slew rate: (T/s or G/s)[1]
2. Pulse shape (sine, triangle, square wave, etc.)
3. Pulse Rise time: (ms or μs)
4. Pulse polarity (Monopolar or Bipolar)
5. Pulse Repetition rate or pulses per second (PPS), often reported as “Hertz” (Hz)
6. Spectral Content (range of frequencies present in the signal on a spectrum analyzer)
7. Coil design, coverage, and penetration (size, geometry, type, and total number of coils)
Ideally, you want a PEMF device that is tuned to what research shows is most effective for the above parameters, especially the slew rate. Sadly, right now more than ever, marketing in PEMF is extremely bad, fraudulent, and cutthroat in every way. Most PEMF sellers lack engineering or scientific expertise, and they often publish falsified and exaggerated specifications for their products. My intention in this buyers' guide is to bring clinically backed recommendations and real science to the field of PEMF. Neither of these plays well in the realm of marketing, where the soft-spoken truth struggles to rise above the deafening roar of marketing hype and fraud.
The good news is that once you are educated from the information in this incredibly detailed buyers’ guide, which is the culmination of my 18 years of research in the field (testing over 40 PEMF devices), you will be able to see through the many lies and scams running rampant like a wildfire through the PEMF community. Armed with real science, physics, and research, you will be able to put out the fires of flashy websites and profit-driven marketing agendas so you can learn exactly what to look for in a PEMF device AND also what to avoid!
[1] T/s = tesla per second, G/s = gauss per second. More on slew rate in Chapters 1-3
In a time of deceit telling the truth is a revolutionary act.
—George Orwell, novelist and social critic
The PEMF industry is unregulated, and companies selling PEMF devices can make any claims they please in their marketing and sales pitches to influence people looking for a good PEMF device, thereby promoting their brand. It's truly a jungle where sales representatives, reviewers, affiliates, and influencers selling PEMF devices can make any claim they want to make a sale, often with wild and inaccurate statements and even outright lies. Because there is so much money to be made, many PEMF companies are so lawsuit "trigger-happy" that they cover their deceptions by suing anyone who says anything critical about their brand (even if it is true). As a result, I have decided not to provide individual reviews of specific PEMF devices online or in print, despite my initial desire to do so. Still, you CAN call me for a free consultation at 941-928-0124. On the phone, I can privately "sing like a canary" and "spill the tea" and tell you about which specific PEMF brands to get and which ones to avoid like the plague.
Sadly, the best marketed or best "reviewed" PEMF machines with the most paid high-profile influencers often win the battle over the actual best engineered (and clinically backed) PEMF devices. While your mind might be appeased, your body and cells care nothing about a good marketing pitch or bogus reviews that surround an inferior product! Avoid trusting review sites, Reddit threads (where I've found several fake profiles selling the brands they review), Facebook groups, and any online reviews, as the industry is being flooded with fake profiles on these platforms, as well as fake reviews and AI-written testimonials. And at best, positive reviews can be a placebo or a mental imagining.
You rarely hear what is most important in a PEMF device, which are the clinically backed parameters you need for PEMF to be effective. The heart of a PEMF device or PEMF therapy in general is the PEMF signal, which has been poorly characterized by most PEMF companies, influencers, and even researchers, if at all. This lack of clarity typically results from emphasizing less essential but widely cited parameters, such as frequency and intensity (measured in gauss), rather than focusing on those most relevant to biological effects. The essential characteristics of a PEMF signal are outlined below:
1. Magnetic slew rate: (T/s or G/s)[1]
2. Pulse shape (sine, triangle, square wave, etc.)
3. Pulse Rise time: (ms or μs)
4. Pulse polarity (Monopolar or Bipolar)
5. Pulse Repetition rate or pulses per second (PPS), often reported as “Hertz” (Hz)
6. Spectral Content (range of frequencies present in the signal on a spectrum analyzer)
7. Coil design, coverage, and penetration (size, geometry, type, and total number of coils)
Ideally, you want a PEMF device that is tuned to what research shows is most effective for the above parameters, especially the slew rate. Sadly, right now more than ever, marketing in PEMF is extremely bad, fraudulent, and cutthroat in every way. Most PEMF sellers lack engineering or scientific expertise, and they often publish falsified and exaggerated specifications for their products. My intention in this buyers' guide is to bring clinically backed recommendations and real science to the field of PEMF. Neither of these plays well in the realm of marketing, where the soft-spoken truth struggles to rise above the deafening roar of marketing hype and fraud.
The good news is that once you are educated from the information in this incredibly detailed buyers’ guide, which is the culmination of my 18 years of research in the field (testing over 40 PEMF devices), you will be able to see through the many lies and scams running rampant like a wildfire through the PEMF community. Armed with real science, physics, and research, you will be able to put out the fires of flashy websites and profit-driven marketing agendas so you can learn exactly what to look for in a PEMF device AND also what to avoid!
[1] T/s = tesla per second, G/s = gauss per second. More on slew rate in Chapters 1-3
Real Physics, Not B.S. (Bad Science)
I spent a year revisiting my college undergraduate and graduate textbooks on electricity and magnetism (also referred to as electrodynamics) back in 2018-2019 and also during this past year (2025), because, as a former college physics professor, I wanted to provide a solid foundation of PEMF based on real physics and science. [1-4]. From this, I created a 10-part YouTube video series called "The REAL Physics of PEMF," which I published on my YouTube channel. Additionally, my recent videos on slew rate are also worth watching [5] as a supplement to this buyers’ guide. This research also served as a foundation for my PEMF course, which I developed for Quantum University, where I continue to serve as a faculty member [6]. The past year, I have learned a lot more, especially on the engineering and research side of PEMF, so this buyers' guide is even more accurate and up to date on the real science and research of PEMF therapy (there are over 700 research citations in this buyers' guide). This solid foundation in physics and research is the basis for what I recommend when looking for a good PEMF device (and also what to avoid). This is not just theory, as my recommendations also stem from over 18 years of personal experience owning, dissecting, testing, and using more than 40 PEMF devices to determine what truly works. Additionally, I have received extensive feedback from over 1,000 end users I have worked with and served, which has helped solidify my recommendations.
Although this buyers' guide is somewhat technical, it provides essential information for anyone looking for a PEMF device. Therefore, it's worth taking the time to understand as much as possible to ensure you get the best device for yourself and your family. I have done my best to provide numerous illustrations and examples, so that any astute reader who takes this information in will learn more about PEMF than most people who work for PEMF companies. If, after reading this guide, you are still confused, please do not hesitate to call me for a free PEMF consultation at 941-928-0124. It is my passion to help people find good PEMF devices that really work and to help them avoid the cheap and ineffective devices that do not. I have found that with phone consultations, I can help to clear the confusion further, because I know electromagnetism (the physics behind PEMF) is a complex subject. All I ask is that you try to read this buyers' guide before calling me. So, let's now begin our journey!
I spent a year revisiting my college undergraduate and graduate textbooks on electricity and magnetism (also referred to as electrodynamics) back in 2018-2019 and also during this past year (2025), because, as a former college physics professor, I wanted to provide a solid foundation of PEMF based on real physics and science. [1-4]. From this, I created a 10-part YouTube video series called "The REAL Physics of PEMF," which I published on my YouTube channel. Additionally, my recent videos on slew rate are also worth watching [5] as a supplement to this buyers’ guide. This research also served as a foundation for my PEMF course, which I developed for Quantum University, where I continue to serve as a faculty member [6]. The past year, I have learned a lot more, especially on the engineering and research side of PEMF, so this buyers' guide is even more accurate and up to date on the real science and research of PEMF therapy (there are over 700 research citations in this buyers' guide). This solid foundation in physics and research is the basis for what I recommend when looking for a good PEMF device (and also what to avoid). This is not just theory, as my recommendations also stem from over 18 years of personal experience owning, dissecting, testing, and using more than 40 PEMF devices to determine what truly works. Additionally, I have received extensive feedback from over 1,000 end users I have worked with and served, which has helped solidify my recommendations.
Although this buyers' guide is somewhat technical, it provides essential information for anyone looking for a PEMF device. Therefore, it's worth taking the time to understand as much as possible to ensure you get the best device for yourself and your family. I have done my best to provide numerous illustrations and examples, so that any astute reader who takes this information in will learn more about PEMF than most people who work for PEMF companies. If, after reading this guide, you are still confused, please do not hesitate to call me for a free PEMF consultation at 941-928-0124. It is my passion to help people find good PEMF devices that really work and to help them avoid the cheap and ineffective devices that do not. I have found that with phone consultations, I can help to clear the confusion further, because I know electromagnetism (the physics behind PEMF) is a complex subject. All I ask is that you try to read this buyers' guide before calling me. So, let's now begin our journey!
Introduction
PEMF is a benefit for mankind from infant to the geriatric, and will lead to a change in the paradigm of medicine.
― Dr. Linus Pauling, Double Nobel Prize Winner
What is PEMF?
PEMF stands for Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields, which are magnetic fields that pulse, vibrate, oscillate, or change with time; contrasted to static magnets that have a constant or steady magnetic field intensity. PEMF therapy is a non-invasive method that delivers pulsing electromagnetic fields throughout your body to recharge cells, improve circulation, lower pain and inflammation, and stimulate healing, regeneration, and recovery from just about every condition A-Z. For people who are already healthy, PEMFs help your body become stronger, more resilient, and more energetic.
More and more people are seeing and believing that PEMFs work, but it is not a matter of belief or placebo alone. The therapeutic use of PEMF is rooted in both science and history, with over 30,000 published research papers (and over 1400 randomized control trial studies - the gold standard in research). Moreover, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared PEMF for various conditions (as shown in the image here), and studies conducted by NASA have also validated the use of PEMF in promoting healing and tissue regeneration. This groundbreaking research on PEMF, spanning over 70 years, dates back to 1957 [7]. The therapeutic effects of PEMF therapy encompass a wide range of medical conditions, numbering in the hundreds. Below is a sampling of some of the most significant areas of PEMF research, which I have also personally seen help hundreds of people I have worked with over the past 18 years.
PEMF is a benefit for mankind from infant to the geriatric, and will lead to a change in the paradigm of medicine.
― Dr. Linus Pauling, Double Nobel Prize Winner
What is PEMF?
PEMF stands for Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields, which are magnetic fields that pulse, vibrate, oscillate, or change with time; contrasted to static magnets that have a constant or steady magnetic field intensity. PEMF therapy is a non-invasive method that delivers pulsing electromagnetic fields throughout your body to recharge cells, improve circulation, lower pain and inflammation, and stimulate healing, regeneration, and recovery from just about every condition A-Z. For people who are already healthy, PEMFs help your body become stronger, more resilient, and more energetic.
More and more people are seeing and believing that PEMFs work, but it is not a matter of belief or placebo alone. The therapeutic use of PEMF is rooted in both science and history, with over 30,000 published research papers (and over 1400 randomized control trial studies - the gold standard in research). Moreover, the Food and Drug Administration (FDA) has cleared PEMF for various conditions (as shown in the image here), and studies conducted by NASA have also validated the use of PEMF in promoting healing and tissue regeneration. This groundbreaking research on PEMF, spanning over 70 years, dates back to 1957 [7]. The therapeutic effects of PEMF therapy encompass a wide range of medical conditions, numbering in the hundreds. Below is a sampling of some of the most significant areas of PEMF research, which I have also personally seen help hundreds of people I have worked with over the past 18 years.
Sampling of the Most Significant Areas of PEMF research
|
Pain Relief of All Forms [FDA Approval*]
Pain Relief */Migraines/back pain/neck pain/knee pain/shoulder pain/pelvic pain/complex regional pain/postoperative pain/Fibromyalgia [8-48] Note: Pain Relief is the #1 Reason people purchase a PEMF device. Anti-Inflammatory [FDA Approval*] Reduce inflammation [49-57] Reduce Swelling and Edema* [58-60] Arthritis [61-69] Healing and Regeneration [FDA Approval*] Bone health/fracture healing/regeneration* [70-77] Osteoporosis [78-80] Nerve regeneration [81-90] Wound Healing/General regeneration [91-98], Prosthetic integration/loosening* [99-101] Cartilage/joint regeneration [102-103] Tendon regeneration [104] Ligament healing [105] Collagen synthesis [105,106] Spinal Disk regeneration [107] Neurodegenerative disease Parkinsons [108-119] Brain Damage/Stroke/TBI[120-125] Multiple Sclerosis M.S. [126-144] Boosts Immunity and Fights Infection Antibiotic/Boost Immunity [145-156] |
Improves Heart Health and Microcirculation/Improved Blood Flow
Microcirculation/heart health [157-160] Heart Health [161,162] Increases Cellular Energy ATP-ase/Energy [163-166] Mental Health [FDA Approval*] Sress/Anxiety/Depression* [167-171] Sleep Sleep [172-176] Cancer* Cancer* and Tumors [177-189] Diabetes Diabetes/Neuropathy/Ulcers/retinopathy [190-196] Eyes Glaucoma/Macular Degeneration/eye health [197-199] Urinary Incontinence [FDA Approval*] Incontinence*/Nocturnal Enuresis [200-209] Skin Eczema/Psoriasis [210-211] Digestion Digestion/Intestinal Health [212] |
These amazing benefits of PEMF were brought to the public spotlight on December 5, 2011. Dr. Oz aired a special show on the pain-relieving effects of pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy, which sent shockwaves across North America. I remember my phone ringing off the hook for several weeks after this show aired, and I was forced to hire a couple of people to simply answer the barrage of calls that came in. According to the experts interviewed on the show and Dr. Oz himself, people can get relief from chronic pain without pills and without surgery. In fact, Dr. Oz himself touted PEMF as the biggest breakthrough in pain management he had ever seen!
PEMF is best known for its pain-relieving effects. In my 18 years in the industry, pain is the #1 reason people purchase a PEMF device, and pain relief remains the #1 testimonial I receive. Chronic pain is by far the biggest health complaint in America, and we need a better solution for pain than over-the-counter pain medicine, opioids, and injections, all of which have side effects and are at best band-aids. However, PEMF is so much more than symptomatic pain relief (which it does remarkably well). PEMF actually helps the body heal and regenerate nearly every tissue in the body. So not only is PEMF a safe, non-invasive, and non-addictive pain killer, it actually stimulates energy, circulation, immunity, growth factors, and stem cells to actually TRULY HEAL AND REGENERATE all the tissues in the body! Regardless of the pain or injury, PEMF will help! Now that you've had a taste of why PEMF is so wonderful, which device should you invest in? Because pain and inflammation are such an epidemic in America, I have dedicated a whole chapter to why I feel PEMF is not only "a" solution for pain, it is the "best" solution for pain (See chapter 12). And pain relief, inflammation and recovery from injury is a motivating force for me in writing this detailed buyers' guide, because PEMF has come to rescue for me time and time again; and owning and using over 40 PEMF devices, I have experienced first-hand that science, research and my own personal experience align with my passionate recommendations for what I call medium intensity and high-slew-rate PEMF devices!
PEMF is best known for its pain-relieving effects. In my 18 years in the industry, pain is the #1 reason people purchase a PEMF device, and pain relief remains the #1 testimonial I receive. Chronic pain is by far the biggest health complaint in America, and we need a better solution for pain than over-the-counter pain medicine, opioids, and injections, all of which have side effects and are at best band-aids. However, PEMF is so much more than symptomatic pain relief (which it does remarkably well). PEMF actually helps the body heal and regenerate nearly every tissue in the body. So not only is PEMF a safe, non-invasive, and non-addictive pain killer, it actually stimulates energy, circulation, immunity, growth factors, and stem cells to actually TRULY HEAL AND REGENERATE all the tissues in the body! Regardless of the pain or injury, PEMF will help! Now that you've had a taste of why PEMF is so wonderful, which device should you invest in? Because pain and inflammation are such an epidemic in America, I have dedicated a whole chapter to why I feel PEMF is not only "a" solution for pain, it is the "best" solution for pain (See chapter 12). And pain relief, inflammation and recovery from injury is a motivating force for me in writing this detailed buyers' guide, because PEMF has come to rescue for me time and time again; and owning and using over 40 PEMF devices, I have experienced first-hand that science, research and my own personal experience align with my passionate recommendations for what I call medium intensity and high-slew-rate PEMF devices!
My Top PEMF Recommendations Are Now Medium Intensity Full Body Mats.
It is also essential to note that I have made a significant shift in my PEMF recommendations over the past year, moving from low intensity (< 10 gauss) and frequency resonance to now recommending medium intensity (10 - 100 gauss) and high-slew-rate. If you're not familiar with slew rate, that's okay, because a significant part of this buyers' guide is to explain why slew rate is THE most crucial parameter in PEMF! I no longer recommend low-intensity devices (see the list above), even though they are all good machines; the problem is that their slew rates are too low. Through my own experience and that of many others I know and work with, I've found that a medium-intensity and high-slew-rate PEMF signal works better, has more research backing it, and is based on much better physics. Studies show medium intensity works better than low intensity, especially for all forms of pain and inflammation [213,214]. Additionally, good medium-intensity PEMF devices are often more affordable, as the MLM model of many popular lower-intensity devices significantly inflates their prices!
It is also essential to note that I have made a significant shift in my PEMF recommendations over the past year, moving from low intensity (< 10 gauss) and frequency resonance to now recommending medium intensity (10 - 100 gauss) and high-slew-rate. If you're not familiar with slew rate, that's okay, because a significant part of this buyers' guide is to explain why slew rate is THE most crucial parameter in PEMF! I no longer recommend low-intensity devices (see the list above), even though they are all good machines; the problem is that their slew rates are too low. Through my own experience and that of many others I know and work with, I've found that a medium-intensity and high-slew-rate PEMF signal works better, has more research backing it, and is based on much better physics. Studies show medium intensity works better than low intensity, especially for all forms of pain and inflammation [213,214]. Additionally, good medium-intensity PEMF devices are often more affordable, as the MLM model of many popular lower-intensity devices significantly inflates their prices!
Car Accident and Why Am I transitioning to Medium-Intensity/High-Slew-Rate PEMF
As I mentioned, I am no longer recommending low-intensity PEMF devices with a field strength of less than 10 gauss (or under 1000 microtesla or 1 millitesla), which includes all the popular low-intensity PEMF brands. The reason for this will be made clear throughout this entire buyers' guide, but having used a medium intensity (10-100 gauss)/high-slew-rate device now for almost a year, the results I have seen personally have been so spectacular in my overall energy, and healing and recovery when needed, I will never go back to low intensity PEMF again!
Early in 2025, I had a bad car accident when a car ran a red light and hit me full speed on the passenger side of the car. Fortunately, I was driving alone with no passenger, but the accident was brutal; my car was not only totaled, but it was also smoking and almost caught fire. The suspension and the wheels on the passenger side were completely caved in. The officers reviewed the camera footage, confirmed that the other people had run the red light, and told me that the crash was difficult for them to watch, adding that I was lucky to walk away. As I was standing by the side of the road telling the officers my side of what happened, my hand began to swell and start throbbing with pain. Also, I felt a pain in my ribs slowly manifest, and a slight concussion feeling in my head, which manifested as a pounding headache. While nothing was broken, I was badly bruised in my hand and ribs and suffered soft tissue damage. My hand was so bad that I couldn't even open a water bottle, tie my shoes, or pick anything up with that hand.
I strongly believe that using PEMF for nearly 18 years made me stronger and more resilient, so things were not as bad as they could have been. For example, if my bones were not as strong as they are, I could have easily broken my hand or ribs. Still, while nothing was broken, I was in excruciating pain and decided to put PEMF to the test, and I did not touch any pain medications, not even an aspirin or anything over the counter. I combined PEMF with ICE with some red-light therapy and did PEMF throughout the first night, all night long over my hand, and continued to do several hours a day for the first week. While the pain was initially severe, I noticed that medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF helped tremendously, and within 3-4 days, the pain had subsided, and the swelling had also decreased. And I am confident that I healed a lot faster than I would have without PEMF. Over the years, I have seen PEMF, on average, cut people's healing time in half, and it also helps you heal better. And that is not just my opinion; one very good study actually confirmed that using PEMF helped heal cartilage lesions on the knee in 45 days, whereas patients not treated with PEMF took 90 days [213].
As I mentioned, I am no longer recommending low-intensity PEMF devices with a field strength of less than 10 gauss (or under 1000 microtesla or 1 millitesla), which includes all the popular low-intensity PEMF brands. The reason for this will be made clear throughout this entire buyers' guide, but having used a medium intensity (10-100 gauss)/high-slew-rate device now for almost a year, the results I have seen personally have been so spectacular in my overall energy, and healing and recovery when needed, I will never go back to low intensity PEMF again!
Early in 2025, I had a bad car accident when a car ran a red light and hit me full speed on the passenger side of the car. Fortunately, I was driving alone with no passenger, but the accident was brutal; my car was not only totaled, but it was also smoking and almost caught fire. The suspension and the wheels on the passenger side were completely caved in. The officers reviewed the camera footage, confirmed that the other people had run the red light, and told me that the crash was difficult for them to watch, adding that I was lucky to walk away. As I was standing by the side of the road telling the officers my side of what happened, my hand began to swell and start throbbing with pain. Also, I felt a pain in my ribs slowly manifest, and a slight concussion feeling in my head, which manifested as a pounding headache. While nothing was broken, I was badly bruised in my hand and ribs and suffered soft tissue damage. My hand was so bad that I couldn't even open a water bottle, tie my shoes, or pick anything up with that hand.
I strongly believe that using PEMF for nearly 18 years made me stronger and more resilient, so things were not as bad as they could have been. For example, if my bones were not as strong as they are, I could have easily broken my hand or ribs. Still, while nothing was broken, I was in excruciating pain and decided to put PEMF to the test, and I did not touch any pain medications, not even an aspirin or anything over the counter. I combined PEMF with ICE with some red-light therapy and did PEMF throughout the first night, all night long over my hand, and continued to do several hours a day for the first week. While the pain was initially severe, I noticed that medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF helped tremendously, and within 3-4 days, the pain had subsided, and the swelling had also decreased. And I am confident that I healed a lot faster than I would have without PEMF. Over the years, I have seen PEMF, on average, cut people's healing time in half, and it also helps you heal better. And that is not just my opinion; one very good study actually confirmed that using PEMF helped heal cartilage lesions on the knee in 45 days, whereas patients not treated with PEMF took 90 days [213].
Pickleball Aches and Pains - Comparing Low to Medium to High Intensity
I used and recommended low-intensity PEMF for almost 17 years until a year ago. Additionally, I rented a luxury high-intensity PEMF device ($40,000) and used it every day for 3 months to test out high intensity as well. I play a LOT of pickleball (now for a year and a half), and love playing singles, which can create wear and tear on my ankles, knees, elbow, and shoulder, so I have had plenty of time to compare how low vs medium vs high intensity helps me to recover. Overall, for energy, healing, and recovery, medium intensity has outperformed both low and high intensity, especially in terms of healing and regeneration. While I was using high intensity, it did help with pain relief, but I noticed some of my minor pickleball injuries and pains were not healing as well. For example, I injured my ankle and knees on separate occasions, and I was not satisfied with the results that high intensity was giving me. And with low intensity, everything was just too slow to respond, but both do work, just not as well in my experience. And as we’ll see in Chapter 5, research confirms this.
As of the time of this writing, using medium intensity PEMF daily, my energy and speed playing pickleball are "off the charts." As a 4.0 DUPR in doubles, I play with many talented players in Sarasota/Bradenton, and my speed and endurance are better than those of anyone close to my age, and I keep up fine with younger players too (If you play Pickleball and are in Sarasota/Bradenton, look me up and we can play)!! The pickleball community here in Sarasota/Bradenton is truly wonderful to be a part of, and I have now helped several players with medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF with various pickleball-related aches and pains. Additionally, I have collected some profound testimonials from customers who purchased medium-intensity PEMF from me (see https://www.bryantmeyers.com/testimonials).
While this is by no means a definitive study, but rather my own personal testimonial with high-slew-rate PEMF, I feel it is valid because I have owned, tested, reviewed, and extensively used over 40 PEMF devices over the past 18 years. I have extensive experience using low-intensity PEMF, as well as the best high-intensity PEMF device available (a $40,000 device commonly used in clinics). Medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF, with a properly engineered signal and coils, has been the clear winner for me, and it is what I choose to use on a daily basis. And if there was a better device, I would personally want to use and recommend THAT. In fact, medium intensity/high -slew-rate has worked so well for me that I was inspired to write this buyers' guide, so you too can experience the benefits of using the best of the best PEMF daily. As we embark on this journey together in this buyers' guide, you'll see that medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF has the most research, is based on the best physics and biophysics, and, most importantly, works best for pain, inflammation, healing, and regeneration (and research confirms this). My goal in writing this buyers' guide is to help you experience the same amazing results I have had over the past year in terms of pain relief, healing, recovery, energy, and athletic performance. Even if you're healthy, PEMF can help you feel more energetic and make your body stronger and more resilient to whatever life throws at you.
I used and recommended low-intensity PEMF for almost 17 years until a year ago. Additionally, I rented a luxury high-intensity PEMF device ($40,000) and used it every day for 3 months to test out high intensity as well. I play a LOT of pickleball (now for a year and a half), and love playing singles, which can create wear and tear on my ankles, knees, elbow, and shoulder, so I have had plenty of time to compare how low vs medium vs high intensity helps me to recover. Overall, for energy, healing, and recovery, medium intensity has outperformed both low and high intensity, especially in terms of healing and regeneration. While I was using high intensity, it did help with pain relief, but I noticed some of my minor pickleball injuries and pains were not healing as well. For example, I injured my ankle and knees on separate occasions, and I was not satisfied with the results that high intensity was giving me. And with low intensity, everything was just too slow to respond, but both do work, just not as well in my experience. And as we’ll see in Chapter 5, research confirms this.
As of the time of this writing, using medium intensity PEMF daily, my energy and speed playing pickleball are "off the charts." As a 4.0 DUPR in doubles, I play with many talented players in Sarasota/Bradenton, and my speed and endurance are better than those of anyone close to my age, and I keep up fine with younger players too (If you play Pickleball and are in Sarasota/Bradenton, look me up and we can play)!! The pickleball community here in Sarasota/Bradenton is truly wonderful to be a part of, and I have now helped several players with medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF with various pickleball-related aches and pains. Additionally, I have collected some profound testimonials from customers who purchased medium-intensity PEMF from me (see https://www.bryantmeyers.com/testimonials).
While this is by no means a definitive study, but rather my own personal testimonial with high-slew-rate PEMF, I feel it is valid because I have owned, tested, reviewed, and extensively used over 40 PEMF devices over the past 18 years. I have extensive experience using low-intensity PEMF, as well as the best high-intensity PEMF device available (a $40,000 device commonly used in clinics). Medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF, with a properly engineered signal and coils, has been the clear winner for me, and it is what I choose to use on a daily basis. And if there was a better device, I would personally want to use and recommend THAT. In fact, medium intensity/high -slew-rate has worked so well for me that I was inspired to write this buyers' guide, so you too can experience the benefits of using the best of the best PEMF daily. As we embark on this journey together in this buyers' guide, you'll see that medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF has the most research, is based on the best physics and biophysics, and, most importantly, works best for pain, inflammation, healing, and regeneration (and research confirms this). My goal in writing this buyers' guide is to help you experience the same amazing results I have had over the past year in terms of pain relief, healing, recovery, energy, and athletic performance. Even if you're healthy, PEMF can help you feel more energetic and make your body stronger and more resilient to whatever life throws at you.
The Main Adventures We'll Explore in this Book Together Are:
- Chapter 1: In this chapter, you will learn about slew rate—a measure of how quickly the magnetic field changes in a PEMF (Pulsed Electromagnetic Field) device—and why it is the most important parameter in all of PEMF. Based on Faraday's Law of induction, the slew rate determines how much energy or microcurrents—tiny electric currents—will be induced in the body.
- Chapter 2: This chapter introduces the concept of the body electric and presents new understandings in bioelectricity. You'll learn that the body utilizes endogenous (internally generated) microcurrents to heal itself. The goal of a high-slew-rate PEMF (Pulsed Electromagnetic Field) device is to induce microcurrents similar to those naturally occurring in the body. Not too little or too much—just right.
- Chapter 3: By understanding both bioelectricity and the best PEMF research on slew rate, this chapter explains the Goldilocks range or zone of the best slew rates to use for healing.
- Chapter 4: This chapter covers the all-important PEMF coils, the second most important component in a PEMF device after slew rate. Ideally, you want large coils with deep penetration and little dead space to cover the whole body. Large circular coils that fill the mat help deliver a high-slew-rate throughout the body. Also important are good local applicators for spot healing and regeneration.
- Chapter 5: Because most PEMF studies do not list slew rate, this chapter investigates the best PEMF intensities. You'll see compelling research showing a device with medium intensity is best backed by evidence—not low or high, but medium!
- Chapter 6: This chapter will expose common myths and misinformation surrounding high-intensity PEMF, as well as why more is not necessarily better. We'll see that the main proponent of high intensity, Dr. Pawluk, uses flawed charts and bad science (B.S.) to promote a high intensity agenda that has no legs to stand on. While high-intensity does have a place in a clinical setting, it is typically not suitable for daily home use. Medium intensity and high-slew-rate are the best options based on real physics and research.
- Chapter 7: In this chapter, we'll look at why and how frequency and resonance are important in PEMF therapy, but in a secondary way. While the key parameter in PEMF remains the slew rate, we'll see that frequency does matter for brain entrainment and dosimetry. Also, we'll look at spectral content and why a high-slew-rate PEMF device gives you the best of Faraday's Law of induction AND magnetic resonance, thereby trumping low intensity "resonance only" systems!
- Chapter 8: This chapter discusses the modern dangers of electrosmog (EMF)—including 60 Hz, dirty electricity, and RF/microwave radiation. We'll review research on the health hazards of EMF and PEMF, as well as the key differences between them, and explore how PEMF can serve as a countermeasure. Many inexpensive crystal PEMF mats and high-intensity devices contain electrosmog, so choosing well-engineered PEMF is important.
- Chapter 9: This chapter outlines engineering strategies used to achieve a high-slew-rate with low electrosmog (EMF). Additionally, we’ll examine the science and engineering principles required to create the most effective PEMF coils. Few PEMF companies use these strategies, and those that do are described as offering devices that align with the standards defined in this book.
- Chapter 10: In this chapter, I will expose what I feel is the biggest scam in the entire PEMF industry: cheap Chinese gemstone mats. I call these devices counterfeit PEMF because they lack a genuine signal generator to produce a therapeutic PEMF wave. All they do is pulse the 60 Hz electrosmog from the power company at different repetition rates. They all contain varying amounts of electric field electrosmog, and worse, all their additional features are worthless gimmicks. For example, they claim far infrared, negative ions (and sometimes red-light therapy), but even these features are a scam, as you'll see in this chapter. Sadly, these Chinese gemstone mats are the most heavily marketed PEMF devices, but the good news is that they are easy to identify, so you can avoid them. Just ask yourself one question: Does the mat have crystals or gemstones? If the answer is yes, then you know it is a Chinese counterfeit PEMF (i.e., no genuine PEMF devices use crystals or gemstones).
- Chapter 11: In this chapter, we'll discuss additional considerations you need to know when shopping for a good PEMF device and the gimmicks and accessories to avoid. Make sure to get a device that comes with a money-back guarantee, a solid warranty (read the fine print), good customer service, comfortable and easy-to-use control units and applicators, has quality engineering (not made in China), and ideally is not MLM or network-marketed, as that can inflate the price.
- Chapter 12: In this chapter, we'll look at the number one reason people invest in PEMF therapy: PAIN RELIEF. We'll investigate the current pain epidemic and the big problems with our medical system when it comes to pain management. We'll see that we need a better solution for pain, and that PEMF is that solution! PEMF therapy not only helps to numb and get rid of chronic pain, but it also gets to the source of the problem: inflammation. Some of the best research in PEMF is its ability to reduce inflammation. And even better, there are hundreds of studies showing that PEMF actually helps the body regenerate and heal itself, thus alleviating pain for good.
- Chapter 13: In this penultimate chapter, I will present some essential basics to help you get the most out of your PEMF therapy device. How long to do a session, and many strategies and tips to help you turn off pain and speed up your healing and regeneration. This chapter is very practical and will be of tremendous help, especially after you purchase a device (hopefully a well-engineered medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF machine). I conclude the chapter with over 20 of the very best health, wellness, and anti-aging tips I have learned over the last 30 years!
- Chapter 14: This final chapter summarizes all that you learned and puts an exclamation point on what the best PEMF devices are to invest in (along with which ones to avoid). These recommendations are science-based and research-backed, allowing anyone to verify the accuracy of the information presented here. If, after reading this guide, you are confused or have questions, call me for a free consultation at 941-928-0124.
Chapter 1:
Slew Rate - the Most Important Parameter in PEMF
Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
― Michael Faraday
Before we dive into slew rate, the most important parameter in PEMF, I'd like to share a serendipitous encounter that led me to shift my recommendation to medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF devices. I have been teaching, writing, sharing, and helping people with PEMF for 18 years now, full-time. Over the past year and a half, I have conducted a comprehensive review of PEMF research studies and learned about the engineering aspects of PEMF, leading to a complete revision of my PEMF recommendations, which form the basis of this book. The shift for me began in early 2024, when I received a call from David (pictured here), a brilliant engineer who had developed a high-slew-rate PEMF device using ingenious electronics and a unique coil design that allowed for a high-slew-rate covering a large area with deep penetration (and with minimal electrosmog). We'll delve into the science and engineering of this in detail throughout the book, but for now, let me simply state that he is undertaking several measures that no other PEMF company is taking to achieve a high-slew-rate on a full-body mat.
David called me after watching some of my videos on Faraday's law of induction and slew rate, and he felt inspired to share his research and device. David has worked on quantum computers and numerous high-level engineering projects, and he has the best hands-on electrical engineering knowledge I have encountered in 18 years in the PEMF industry. I can say this with confidence because we have spoken for well over 200 hours on the phone over the past year and a half, discussing the research, science, and engineering of PEMF devices. David also sent me several slew rate PEMF studies, which I reviewed, leading me down a new path in PEMF. Together, we collected 19 high-quality studies on slew rate [1-19], which we will examine in detail in Chapter 3. For many years, I believed that low-intensity PEMF, which matches the Earth's natural intensities and frequencies, was the best approach, and it remains a viable option. However, low-intensity (< 10 gauss or 1 millitesla) systems must rely solely on resonance, as there is not enough intensity to generate a high slew-rate signal, as we'll see in this book.
David's initial goal was to create a PEMF device that would help his knees heal from pain, which he suffered from for many years after a three-wheeler accident where the brakes failed and he slid his feet behind to slow down and hit a pothole. The gravel road left rocks in his knee that cut up and damaged his knee, which led to chronic knee pain over many years. Having heard about PEMF from his podiatrist, he decided to create a prototype device to heal his knee based on NASA's study of the square wave and Robert Dennis's follow-up research using it. After using his own PEMF prototype for a month on his knee, he found, to his surprise (since he was initially skeptical), that his knee pain had gone away and had not returned since. He said it felt like he got a new pair of knees! From that great experience, David shared his device with some close friends who were suffering in pain. First was Jesse, who had his wisdom teeth removed and was in terrible pain. David gave him a prototype unit, and within an hour of using it, his pain was gone! Another friend of his, Ashley, had a terrible car accident that left her in the ICU for 2 weeks in 2005, and she suffered spinal deterioration because of it, along with two decades of chronic pain. After using David's PEMF device a couple of times, Ashley's pain went away, and with regular use, she got her life back! Also, her husband, Derrick, was able to cancel prostate surgery because of the results he got using David's PEMF device.
We have mentioned slew rate, which is the most important parameter in PEMF therapy, but have not yet explained it. This section and the next will provide you with a detailed understanding of slew rate, enabling you to better comprehend why a PEMF device with a high-slew-rate is necessary and experience the amazing benefits that I, along with several hundred others, have since discovered with this unit. However, first, we need to establish the foundation with the two most fundamental principles in physics that govern all of PEMF: Ampère's Law and Faraday's Law.
Slew Rate - the Most Important Parameter in PEMF
Nothing is too wonderful to be true if it be consistent with the laws of nature.
― Michael Faraday
Before we dive into slew rate, the most important parameter in PEMF, I'd like to share a serendipitous encounter that led me to shift my recommendation to medium-intensity/high slew-rate PEMF devices. I have been teaching, writing, sharing, and helping people with PEMF for 18 years now, full-time. Over the past year and a half, I have conducted a comprehensive review of PEMF research studies and learned about the engineering aspects of PEMF, leading to a complete revision of my PEMF recommendations, which form the basis of this book. The shift for me began in early 2024, when I received a call from David (pictured here), a brilliant engineer who had developed a high-slew-rate PEMF device using ingenious electronics and a unique coil design that allowed for a high-slew-rate covering a large area with deep penetration (and with minimal electrosmog). We'll delve into the science and engineering of this in detail throughout the book, but for now, let me simply state that he is undertaking several measures that no other PEMF company is taking to achieve a high-slew-rate on a full-body mat.
David called me after watching some of my videos on Faraday's law of induction and slew rate, and he felt inspired to share his research and device. David has worked on quantum computers and numerous high-level engineering projects, and he has the best hands-on electrical engineering knowledge I have encountered in 18 years in the PEMF industry. I can say this with confidence because we have spoken for well over 200 hours on the phone over the past year and a half, discussing the research, science, and engineering of PEMF devices. David also sent me several slew rate PEMF studies, which I reviewed, leading me down a new path in PEMF. Together, we collected 19 high-quality studies on slew rate [1-19], which we will examine in detail in Chapter 3. For many years, I believed that low-intensity PEMF, which matches the Earth's natural intensities and frequencies, was the best approach, and it remains a viable option. However, low-intensity (< 10 gauss or 1 millitesla) systems must rely solely on resonance, as there is not enough intensity to generate a high slew-rate signal, as we'll see in this book.
David's initial goal was to create a PEMF device that would help his knees heal from pain, which he suffered from for many years after a three-wheeler accident where the brakes failed and he slid his feet behind to slow down and hit a pothole. The gravel road left rocks in his knee that cut up and damaged his knee, which led to chronic knee pain over many years. Having heard about PEMF from his podiatrist, he decided to create a prototype device to heal his knee based on NASA's study of the square wave and Robert Dennis's follow-up research using it. After using his own PEMF prototype for a month on his knee, he found, to his surprise (since he was initially skeptical), that his knee pain had gone away and had not returned since. He said it felt like he got a new pair of knees! From that great experience, David shared his device with some close friends who were suffering in pain. First was Jesse, who had his wisdom teeth removed and was in terrible pain. David gave him a prototype unit, and within an hour of using it, his pain was gone! Another friend of his, Ashley, had a terrible car accident that left her in the ICU for 2 weeks in 2005, and she suffered spinal deterioration because of it, along with two decades of chronic pain. After using David's PEMF device a couple of times, Ashley's pain went away, and with regular use, she got her life back! Also, her husband, Derrick, was able to cancel prostate surgery because of the results he got using David's PEMF device.
We have mentioned slew rate, which is the most important parameter in PEMF therapy, but have not yet explained it. This section and the next will provide you with a detailed understanding of slew rate, enabling you to better comprehend why a PEMF device with a high-slew-rate is necessary and experience the amazing benefits that I, along with several hundred others, have since discovered with this unit. However, first, we need to establish the foundation with the two most fundamental principles in physics that govern all of PEMF: Ampère's Law and Faraday's Law.
Ampère's Law - Magnetism from Electricity
André-Marie Ampère was a French physicist and mathematician recognized as one of the founders of classical electromagnetism, which he termed electrodynamics. He invented several applications, including the solenoid—a term he introduced—and the electrical telegraph. Ampère's most significant scientific contribution is Ampère's Law in electrodynamics. This followed the discovery by Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted that a magnetic needle is deflected by an electric current nearby. From this truly landmark discovery, Ampère then formulated a mathematical and physical theory to explain the relationship between electricity and magnetism. The central outcome of this work is the principle now known as Ampère's Law.
Simply put, Ampère's law states that an electric current flowing through a wire creates a circulating magnetic field, with the direction of the field determined by the right-hand rule shown in the image[1]. But something amazing happens when you bend that current-carrying wire into a circular loop: all the magnetic field lines reinforce each other in the middle, and you get a North-South pole magnetic field just like a bar magnet. In fact, if you wind the coil into a column (called a solenoid), you end up with an electromagnet that has an identical magnetic field to a bar magnet (see image below)! It turns out that, even at the atomic level, magnetic materials like ferromagnetic iron exhibit magnetic properties because circulating and spinning electrons (which act like little current loops) create atomic magnetic fields! It is important to note that these magnetic fields arising from current loops, like those found in PEMF devices, are closed-loop magnetic fields where the field does not radiate away UNLESS the frequency and/or intensity is too high. This is a distinguishing feature of a good PEMF machine: the pulsing or changing magnetic fields stay attached to the coil like a bar magnet.
[1] To be more technically accurate, Ampere's law describes the force of attraction or repulsion between two current-carrying wires. The physical origin of this force is that each wire generates a magnetic field, following the Biot–Savart law (which we will look at in chapter 4 & 6), and the other wire experiences a magnetic force as a consequence, following the Lorentz force law. But for our purposes here with PEMF, since the human body is not a current carrying wire, it is enough to know that a current carrying wire generates a circulating magnetic field.
André-Marie Ampère was a French physicist and mathematician recognized as one of the founders of classical electromagnetism, which he termed electrodynamics. He invented several applications, including the solenoid—a term he introduced—and the electrical telegraph. Ampère's most significant scientific contribution is Ampère's Law in electrodynamics. This followed the discovery by Danish physicist Hans Christian Ørsted that a magnetic needle is deflected by an electric current nearby. From this truly landmark discovery, Ampère then formulated a mathematical and physical theory to explain the relationship between electricity and magnetism. The central outcome of this work is the principle now known as Ampère's Law.
Simply put, Ampère's law states that an electric current flowing through a wire creates a circulating magnetic field, with the direction of the field determined by the right-hand rule shown in the image[1]. But something amazing happens when you bend that current-carrying wire into a circular loop: all the magnetic field lines reinforce each other in the middle, and you get a North-South pole magnetic field just like a bar magnet. In fact, if you wind the coil into a column (called a solenoid), you end up with an electromagnet that has an identical magnetic field to a bar magnet (see image below)! It turns out that, even at the atomic level, magnetic materials like ferromagnetic iron exhibit magnetic properties because circulating and spinning electrons (which act like little current loops) create atomic magnetic fields! It is important to note that these magnetic fields arising from current loops, like those found in PEMF devices, are closed-loop magnetic fields where the field does not radiate away UNLESS the frequency and/or intensity is too high. This is a distinguishing feature of a good PEMF machine: the pulsing or changing magnetic fields stay attached to the coil like a bar magnet.
[1] To be more technically accurate, Ampere's law describes the force of attraction or repulsion between two current-carrying wires. The physical origin of this force is that each wire generates a magnetic field, following the Biot–Savart law (which we will look at in chapter 4 & 6), and the other wire experiences a magnetic force as a consequence, following the Lorentz force law. But for our purposes here with PEMF, since the human body is not a current carrying wire, it is enough to know that a current carrying wire generates a circulating magnetic field.
The intensity of a magnetic field[1] produced by a current or current loop is measured in units of gauss (G) or tesla (T), where 1 tesla equals 10,000 gauss. Tesla is the International System of Units (SI) standard for magnetic field strength, also known as magnetic flux density. This unit represents the overall strength or intensity of the magnetic field surrounding an object, which decreases with distance. For example, when two strong magnets are brought close together, the force experienced is due to their magnetic fields. Both tesla and gauss measure the same physical quantity, analogous to how meters and miles both measure distance.
For example, the Earth has a magnetic field intensity of about .35-.70 gauss, which is 35 - 70 μT. So, any PEMF device operating at 1 tesla or 10,000 gauss is using an intensity that is 20,000 TIMES greater than the Earth's! Along with high-intensity PEMF, strong neodymium magnets also have magnetic field intensities of around 10,000 gauss or 1 tesla, as do MRIs and junkyard magnets (both around 15,000 gauss or 1.5 T). With PEMF devices, we usually use microtesla (μT) for low-intensity PEMF, millitesla (mT) for medium-intensity PEMF, and tesla (or gauss) for high-intensity PEMF[2]. As we will see, most PEMF clinical studies (>95%) are conducted at low <1 mT (<10 gauss) and medium 1-10 mT (10-100 gauss) intensities, not high intensity >100 mT (>1000 gauss), with medium intensity by far having the most research [20]!
[1] Because the magnetic field is a vector, it is usually denoted by the vector B in physics, and like any vector, it has both a magnitude and direction. When PEMF devices list their intensity, they are only listing the magnitude, usually just the peak intensity |B| measured right on top of the mat or applicator at only one point, usually right on top of the coil where the intensity is greatest. It is implied that the direction is perpendicular to the mat and coils in the mat, even though the direction will vary above, in, and around the coils as the magnetic field creates a donut or toroidal-like shape, as you can see in the images above right.
[2] A millitesla is abbreviated mT = 1/1,000 of a tesla. A microtesla, which is abbreviated μT = 1/1,000,000 of a tesla. Make note of these magnetic field intensity abbreviations μT and mT (because we will use them throughout this buyers' guide).
For example, the Earth has a magnetic field intensity of about .35-.70 gauss, which is 35 - 70 μT. So, any PEMF device operating at 1 tesla or 10,000 gauss is using an intensity that is 20,000 TIMES greater than the Earth's! Along with high-intensity PEMF, strong neodymium magnets also have magnetic field intensities of around 10,000 gauss or 1 tesla, as do MRIs and junkyard magnets (both around 15,000 gauss or 1.5 T). With PEMF devices, we usually use microtesla (μT) for low-intensity PEMF, millitesla (mT) for medium-intensity PEMF, and tesla (or gauss) for high-intensity PEMF[2]. As we will see, most PEMF clinical studies (>95%) are conducted at low <1 mT (<10 gauss) and medium 1-10 mT (10-100 gauss) intensities, not high intensity >100 mT (>1000 gauss), with medium intensity by far having the most research [20]!
[1] Because the magnetic field is a vector, it is usually denoted by the vector B in physics, and like any vector, it has both a magnitude and direction. When PEMF devices list their intensity, they are only listing the magnitude, usually just the peak intensity |B| measured right on top of the mat or applicator at only one point, usually right on top of the coil where the intensity is greatest. It is implied that the direction is perpendicular to the mat and coils in the mat, even though the direction will vary above, in, and around the coils as the magnetic field creates a donut or toroidal-like shape, as you can see in the images above right.
[2] A millitesla is abbreviated mT = 1/1,000 of a tesla. A microtesla, which is abbreviated μT = 1/1,000,000 of a tesla. Make note of these magnetic field intensity abbreviations μT and mT (because we will use them throughout this buyers' guide).
So far, we have been talking about a steady, direct current (DC), which also creates a static magnetic field (which appears as a straight line on an oscilloscope). What makes PEMF different from static magnets (or DC electromagnets) is that it pulses, changes, or varies the magnetic field. Common examples of PEMF signals that change or vary over time include sine waves, square waves, and sawtooth or triangle waves, as shown here.
Now, while it is okay to use gauss or tesla to measure and describe static magnets or unchanging electromagnets (like junkyard magnets), this is not ideal for describing PEMFs! Sadly, many so-called PEMF experts focus on increasing the magnetic field intensity in gauss or tesla units. However, PEMFs are not static magnets! Because PEMFs are a more complex changing magnetic field that pulses, vibrates, and varies with time, we need to introduce additional signal parameters to adequately describe it, which we will explore in this buyers' guide: slew rate, pulse duration, polarity, repetition rate or pulse frequency, and spectral content or the frequency spectrum.
Now, while it is okay to use gauss or tesla to measure and describe static magnets or unchanging electromagnets (like junkyard magnets), this is not ideal for describing PEMFs! Sadly, many so-called PEMF experts focus on increasing the magnetic field intensity in gauss or tesla units. However, PEMFs are not static magnets! Because PEMFs are a more complex changing magnetic field that pulses, vibrates, and varies with time, we need to introduce additional signal parameters to adequately describe it, which we will explore in this buyers' guide: slew rate, pulse duration, polarity, repetition rate or pulse frequency, and spectral content or the frequency spectrum.
Faraday's Law - Electricity from Magnetism
I want you to ponder something amazing: You can create energy by moving a magnet! It is said that ancient Hindus, as early as 4000 B.C., and the Chinese, around 2000 B.C., used lodestones (natural magnetic ores on Earth believed to be created by lightning strikes). Some accounts recall ancient healers MOVING these lodestones to create more dynamic healing effects. This is PEMF - using moving, changing, or time-varying magnetic fields to create energy!
This brings us to the second - and most important - principle of physics that governs PEMF, which is Faraday's Law of Induction that states a changing or "pulsed" magnetic field induces a circulating electric field which creates an EMF (measured in Volts (V)). EMF (Electromotive force) is the energy or "push" that drives electric current through a circuit, or a nearby conductor, LIKE YOUR BODY. And YES, the human body is a particularly good conductor of electricity (only in your body is the electric current generated by ionic flows in solution, not by electrons in copper wires). Faraday's Law is literally the EMF in PEMF! That is, how quickly the "P" or "Pulsing" in P-EMF reaches its peak intensity dictates how much energy or EMF is transferred to your body! As we will see next, rapid rise-and-fall signals (like square waves) provide more EMF, OOMPH, or ENERGY to your cells than slow-rising waves (like sine waves)[1].
[1] Technically EMF is the line integral of the electric field around any circuit or closed loop. In the case of PEMF, the electric field is created by Faraday's law that dictates that a changing magnetic field induces a swirling or circulating electric field. The calculated EMF is the work done by this induced electric field on a unit charge around the calculated closed loop. But it is simpler to think of the EMF from a changing magnetic field (like PEMF) as the energy that "pushes", "drives" or creates electrical currents, including healing microcurrents in your cells, tissues and organs!
I want you to ponder something amazing: You can create energy by moving a magnet! It is said that ancient Hindus, as early as 4000 B.C., and the Chinese, around 2000 B.C., used lodestones (natural magnetic ores on Earth believed to be created by lightning strikes). Some accounts recall ancient healers MOVING these lodestones to create more dynamic healing effects. This is PEMF - using moving, changing, or time-varying magnetic fields to create energy!
This brings us to the second - and most important - principle of physics that governs PEMF, which is Faraday's Law of Induction that states a changing or "pulsed" magnetic field induces a circulating electric field which creates an EMF (measured in Volts (V)). EMF (Electromotive force) is the energy or "push" that drives electric current through a circuit, or a nearby conductor, LIKE YOUR BODY. And YES, the human body is a particularly good conductor of electricity (only in your body is the electric current generated by ionic flows in solution, not by electrons in copper wires). Faraday's Law is literally the EMF in PEMF! That is, how quickly the "P" or "Pulsing" in P-EMF reaches its peak intensity dictates how much energy or EMF is transferred to your body! As we will see next, rapid rise-and-fall signals (like square waves) provide more EMF, OOMPH, or ENERGY to your cells than slow-rising waves (like sine waves)[1].
[1] Technically EMF is the line integral of the electric field around any circuit or closed loop. In the case of PEMF, the electric field is created by Faraday's law that dictates that a changing magnetic field induces a swirling or circulating electric field. The calculated EMF is the work done by this induced electric field on a unit charge around the calculated closed loop. But it is simpler to think of the EMF from a changing magnetic field (like PEMF) as the energy that "pushes", "drives" or creates electrical currents, including healing microcurrents in your cells, tissues and organs!
A good demonstration of Faraday's law is a galvanometer. A galvanometer is simply a coil connected to a device that measures electrical current (called an ammeter). If you take a strong magnet (even one over 10,000 gauss) and place it at rest in the middle of the coil, you find no current is generated. No matter how much gauss you use, the needle will not move!! Why? Because, as Faraday's law dictates, only a CHANGING magnetic field creates an Electro-Motive Force that transfers energy to the coil, "pushes" electrons in the wire and generates a current, which is registered on the ammeter. Even a weak magnet will create a current if you move it fast enough. And conversely, a strong magnet - no matter how much gauss it has - will not generate ANY current if the magnet is stationary. This is science, not speculation! So, can you see why gauss, tesla, or Intensity is not the key parameter in PEMF
We can quantify all this using Slew Rate, a straightforward way to describe Faraday's Law of Induction in PEMF devices. Slew rate is the KEY or most critical parameter in all of PEMF, so we will discuss this all-important topic in much detail next.
We can quantify all this using Slew Rate, a straightforward way to describe Faraday's Law of Induction in PEMF devices. Slew rate is the KEY or most critical parameter in all of PEMF, so we will discuss this all-important topic in much detail next.
Look for a PEMF Device with a Research-Proven Slew Rate (the Most Critical Parameter in PEMF).
Based on Faraday's Law, slew rate is a quantitative measure of how quickly the magnetic field changes over time, expressed in tesla/second (T/s) or gauss/second (G/s). As shown in the graphic here, slew rate is the peak magnetic field intensity (B) divided by the rise time (t). The rise time is the time a PEMF signal takes to reach its peak (the shorter or "faster" the rise time, the greater the slew rate)! This gives us the rise/run (dB/dt), or the slope, of the PEMF signal as seen on an oscilloscope. A high-slew-rate indicates that the PEMF is pulsing or changing quickly, resulting in a steeper slope. This means more energy is transferred to your body, tissues, and cells, leading to increased energy, reduced pain, and improved health/healing.
Based on Faraday's Law, slew rate is a quantitative measure of how quickly the magnetic field changes over time, expressed in tesla/second (T/s) or gauss/second (G/s). As shown in the graphic here, slew rate is the peak magnetic field intensity (B) divided by the rise time (t). The rise time is the time a PEMF signal takes to reach its peak (the shorter or "faster" the rise time, the greater the slew rate)! This gives us the rise/run (dB/dt), or the slope, of the PEMF signal as seen on an oscilloscope. A high-slew-rate indicates that the PEMF is pulsing or changing quickly, resulting in a steeper slope. This means more energy is transferred to your body, tissues, and cells, leading to increased energy, reduced pain, and improved health/healing.
|
|
A familiar example of slew rate is found in credit card readers. As you know from experience, if you do not swipe your card fast enough, it will not register. Why? The slew rate dictates that the faster you swipe the magnetic stripe on your credit card, the more current is generated in the credit card reader.
Also, you can think of slew rate as a way to wirelessly transfer energy or power from one circuit (the primary coil) to another (the secondary coil), as power transformers do in electrical power lines. A notable example of this is wireless charging plates, or Qi chargers, that can charge your smartphone, tablet, or smartwatch without any cables or wires using a changing magnetic field! Here, you have a primary coil on the charging plate that generates a magnetic field that changes over time. This changing magnetic field (slew rate) creates an EMF that "pushes" or "drives" an electrical current in a secondary coil in your phone or smart device. This current then charges up the battery! You can wirelessly charge electrical devices with a sufficiently high-slew-rate. What's interesting is that when you open these charging plates, they have small PEMF coils, almost identical to those in PEMF devices. PEMF therapy is literally a whole-body battery recharger for your cells!
Let's now look at the history and research showing that it is these induced-healing microcurrents that help the body repair and regenerate. To fully understand this, let's next look at the Body Electric and how cellular and organ electric fields and microcurrents are involved in how the body heals itself naturally! The important point to keep in mind is that a medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF device is needed to induce regenerative microcurrents that mimic the body's natural fields and currents. This was a big "aha moment" for me in shifting from recommending low-intensity PEMF to medium-intensity/ high-slew-rate PEMF.
Also, you can think of slew rate as a way to wirelessly transfer energy or power from one circuit (the primary coil) to another (the secondary coil), as power transformers do in electrical power lines. A notable example of this is wireless charging plates, or Qi chargers, that can charge your smartphone, tablet, or smartwatch without any cables or wires using a changing magnetic field! Here, you have a primary coil on the charging plate that generates a magnetic field that changes over time. This changing magnetic field (slew rate) creates an EMF that "pushes" or "drives" an electrical current in a secondary coil in your phone or smart device. This current then charges up the battery! You can wirelessly charge electrical devices with a sufficiently high-slew-rate. What's interesting is that when you open these charging plates, they have small PEMF coils, almost identical to those in PEMF devices. PEMF therapy is literally a whole-body battery recharger for your cells!
Let's now look at the history and research showing that it is these induced-healing microcurrents that help the body repair and regenerate. To fully understand this, let's next look at the Body Electric and how cellular and organ electric fields and microcurrents are involved in how the body heals itself naturally! The important point to keep in mind is that a medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF device is needed to induce regenerative microcurrents that mimic the body's natural fields and currents. This was a big "aha moment" for me in shifting from recommending low-intensity PEMF to medium-intensity/ high-slew-rate PEMF.
Luigi Galvani's Frog Experiment
Chapter 2:
Injury Currents and the Body Electric
The basis of life is bioelectric, we are electric beings.
― Richard Nuccitelli
Frog Legs and Frankenstein
As far back as the 18th century, Italian physician and surgeon Luigi Galvani noticed that recently dissected frog legs twitched vigorously when a nearby electric generator emitted a spark. The phenomenon was so interesting that Galvani made a career of studying the twitches and how, for example, an ‘electric fluid’ in a nerve could be conducted via a metallic wire to a muscle, which would contract. In 1791, he wrote a paper detailing many of his experiments entitled “The Effects of Artificial Electricity on Muscular Motion” [1]. This discovery led to the widespread belief that electricity represented the literal 'spark of life.' It was such a pervasive theory that it found its way into literature and the arts, as exemplified by Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein, in which a lightning storm inspires a young Dr. Frankenstein to investigate the possible uses of electricity, including bringing the dead to life.
Injury Currents and the Body Electric
The basis of life is bioelectric, we are electric beings.
― Richard Nuccitelli
Frog Legs and Frankenstein
As far back as the 18th century, Italian physician and surgeon Luigi Galvani noticed that recently dissected frog legs twitched vigorously when a nearby electric generator emitted a spark. The phenomenon was so interesting that Galvani made a career of studying the twitches and how, for example, an ‘electric fluid’ in a nerve could be conducted via a metallic wire to a muscle, which would contract. In 1791, he wrote a paper detailing many of his experiments entitled “The Effects of Artificial Electricity on Muscular Motion” [1]. This discovery led to the widespread belief that electricity represented the literal 'spark of life.' It was such a pervasive theory that it found its way into literature and the arts, as exemplified by Mary Shelley’s 1818 novel Frankenstein, in which a lightning storm inspires a young Dr. Frankenstein to investigate the possible uses of electricity, including bringing the dead to life.
It did not take very long for Galvani’s discoveries to be applied in medicine. One early discovery that has endured to this day is the use of electricity to promote healing in bone fractures that fail to unite. In 1841, Edward Hartshorne describes the use of electrical stimulation by John Birch, a London Surgeon. According to Hartshorne, in 1812, Dr. John Birch in London successfully treated a nonunion fracture of the tibia using electric currents passed through needles surgically implanted in the fracture region [2]. In 1850, Lente reported on the successful treatment of three patients with delayed unions or nonunions using electricity [3]. In 1853, the British journal, Medical Times and Gazette, published “Galvanism [electricity] to the Un-united Fracture”, describing the use of electrically charged needles inserted into a fracture site to cause healing at York County Hospital. By the mid-1800s, this had become a preferred method for treating slow-healing bone fractures [4]. Electrotherapy and energy medicine flourished throughout the 1800s and early 1900s, with both electricity and magnetism being applied to treat bones, tissues, and various diseases.
Electromagnetic therapies, both as a medical discipline and a field of clinical research, fell into disfavor in North America following the publication of Abraham Flexner’s 1910 report entitled "Medical Education in the United States and Canada" [5]. Subsequently, electromagnetic and similar devices were removed from clinics, stores, and mail-order catalogues. The increasing influence of organized medicine and a near-total reliance on pharmaceuticals resulted in a prolonged dormancy of electromagnetic therapies in the United States, lasting approximately 60 years until the mid-1970s.
It was then rediscovered, with even stronger evidence, that weak electric currents and high-slew-rate PEMFs could induce sufficient current flow through bone fractures to jump-start and facilitate the healing process. The use of microcurrents and PEMF therapy for bone healing marked the modern beginning of the rise of energy medicine as the most powerful tool for healing not just bones, but everything from A to Z. Though many figures were part of this resurgence, perhaps none was greater than Robert O. Becker. Robert O. Becker became intrigued by the question of why humans can regenerate bone but typically form scar tissue for most other wounds. This led to his pioneering research into bioelectricity, which he detailed in his 1985 seminal book, The Body Electric. He hypothesized that specific electrical signals generated by cells, tissues, and organs were the key to triggering true regeneration rather than partial or incomplete healing with scar formation.
It was then rediscovered, with even stronger evidence, that weak electric currents and high-slew-rate PEMFs could induce sufficient current flow through bone fractures to jump-start and facilitate the healing process. The use of microcurrents and PEMF therapy for bone healing marked the modern beginning of the rise of energy medicine as the most powerful tool for healing not just bones, but everything from A to Z. Though many figures were part of this resurgence, perhaps none was greater than Robert O. Becker. Robert O. Becker became intrigued by the question of why humans can regenerate bone but typically form scar tissue for most other wounds. This led to his pioneering research into bioelectricity, which he detailed in his 1985 seminal book, The Body Electric. He hypothesized that specific electrical signals generated by cells, tissues, and organs were the key to triggering true regeneration rather than partial or incomplete healing with scar formation.
Becker's Core Hypotheses
Regeneration refers to the capacity of certain lower animals to replace lost body parts, a phenomenon particularly pronounced in salamanders. Salamanders can regenerate entire limbs, eyes, ears, up to one-third of the brain, most of the digestive tract, and as much as half of the heart. For example, if a salamander loses an eye or a limb, it will regenerate a fully functional replacement. This raises the question of why salamanders possess this regenerative ability while frogs, despite being closely related genetically, do not.
The primary observed difference between frogs and salamanders is that salamanders exhibit a significantly higher voltage at wound sites, resulting in a stronger 'current of injury,' as described by Becker, which stimulates tissue regeneration. Becker further observed that in frogs, the electrical charge and current at the wound site decrease over time, leading to scar formation. In contrast, salamanders experience a switch in electrical polarity to a negative charge, producing a voltage change that sustains a strong current until regeneration is complete.
Regeneration refers to the capacity of certain lower animals to replace lost body parts, a phenomenon particularly pronounced in salamanders. Salamanders can regenerate entire limbs, eyes, ears, up to one-third of the brain, most of the digestive tract, and as much as half of the heart. For example, if a salamander loses an eye or a limb, it will regenerate a fully functional replacement. This raises the question of why salamanders possess this regenerative ability while frogs, despite being closely related genetically, do not.
The primary observed difference between frogs and salamanders is that salamanders exhibit a significantly higher voltage at wound sites, resulting in a stronger 'current of injury,' as described by Becker, which stimulates tissue regeneration. Becker further observed that in frogs, the electrical charge and current at the wound site decrease over time, leading to scar formation. In contrast, salamanders experience a switch in electrical polarity to a negative charge, producing a voltage change that sustains a strong current until regeneration is complete.
Current of Injury - A Key to Regeneration
The "current of injury" refers to a small direct current (DC) of electricity present at wound sites, which is essential for the healing process. When tissue is cut or amputated, electrical currents emerge from the wound, similar to the flow from the ends of live wires in a severed circuit. Becker and his colleagues associated regenerative capacity with this measurable “current of injury”, which is present in all organisms to varying extents.
Becker applied this insight in efforts to regenerate rat limbs. In a landmark 1972 study published in Nature, he demonstrated that applying a low-voltage DC electrical current to the stumps of amputated rat limbs stimulated partial regeneration, including the formation of new bone, cartilage, and nerve tissue [6]. Although humans are not capable of full limb regeneration, Becker directed his research toward treating non-union bone fractures that would not heal naturally. In the 1960s, he successfully used electrical stimulation to promote the healing of bone fractures that otherwise would not have fused on their own. The use of electrical stimulation to aid the healing of nonunion fractures is now recognized as a therapy[1]. A New Era of Electromagnetic Therapy had begun and continues to gain momentum to this day!
Robert Becker's identification of the current of injury built on findings dating back to the 19th century. In 1844, Carlo Matteucci first identified an injury potential resulting from current flowing between a site of injury and an intact region of muscle [7]. Emil Heinrich du Bois-Reymond (1865) confirmed this phenomenon and observed a similar potential in injured nerves. Du Bois-Reymond also demonstrated that small epidermal wounds in human fingers immersed in saline produce currents, a finding later confirmed by Herlitzka in 1910 [8,9].
The injury current (also known as the wound current) is now well established in modern bioelectricity research as an integral part of the intricate process by which the skin or another tissue or organ repairs itself after injury [10-12]. To see how this relates so integrally to the power and efficacy of high-slew-rate PEMF, we need to understand how these natural bioelectrical injury or wound currents are created. After we understand this, it will become clear why using microcurrents or high-slew-rate PEMFs of just the right amount can stimulate, enhance, and jump-start the healing process. Let's first explore the source of this natural healing electricity, which originates from cellular ATP production and cellular voltage, also known as transmembrane potential (TMP).
[1] As we'll see, so is PEMF therapy, which works even better for this purpose.
The "current of injury" refers to a small direct current (DC) of electricity present at wound sites, which is essential for the healing process. When tissue is cut or amputated, electrical currents emerge from the wound, similar to the flow from the ends of live wires in a severed circuit. Becker and his colleagues associated regenerative capacity with this measurable “current of injury”, which is present in all organisms to varying extents.
Becker applied this insight in efforts to regenerate rat limbs. In a landmark 1972 study published in Nature, he demonstrated that applying a low-voltage DC electrical current to the stumps of amputated rat limbs stimulated partial regeneration, including the formation of new bone, cartilage, and nerve tissue [6]. Although humans are not capable of full limb regeneration, Becker directed his research toward treating non-union bone fractures that would not heal naturally. In the 1960s, he successfully used electrical stimulation to promote the healing of bone fractures that otherwise would not have fused on their own. The use of electrical stimulation to aid the healing of nonunion fractures is now recognized as a therapy[1]. A New Era of Electromagnetic Therapy had begun and continues to gain momentum to this day!
Robert Becker's identification of the current of injury built on findings dating back to the 19th century. In 1844, Carlo Matteucci first identified an injury potential resulting from current flowing between a site of injury and an intact region of muscle [7]. Emil Heinrich du Bois-Reymond (1865) confirmed this phenomenon and observed a similar potential in injured nerves. Du Bois-Reymond also demonstrated that small epidermal wounds in human fingers immersed in saline produce currents, a finding later confirmed by Herlitzka in 1910 [8,9].
The injury current (also known as the wound current) is now well established in modern bioelectricity research as an integral part of the intricate process by which the skin or another tissue or organ repairs itself after injury [10-12]. To see how this relates so integrally to the power and efficacy of high-slew-rate PEMF, we need to understand how these natural bioelectrical injury or wound currents are created. After we understand this, it will become clear why using microcurrents or high-slew-rate PEMFs of just the right amount can stimulate, enhance, and jump-start the healing process. Let's first explore the source of this natural healing electricity, which originates from cellular ATP production and cellular voltage, also known as transmembrane potential (TMP).
[1] As we'll see, so is PEMF therapy, which works even better for this purpose.
Cellular Voltage and Transcellular Currents - the Source of TEP
Unlike electric eels, which possess specialized organs to generate electrical discharges, human bioelectricity originates at the cellular level and is propagated through tissues, organs, and the entire body. The human body comprises approximately 30 to 40 trillion cells, each functioning much like a wet-cell battery. Several decades ago, Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Otto Warburg demonstrated that cells maintain a voltage across their membrane, known as the transmembrane potential (TMP), which is comparable to the voltage of a battery. Warburg quantified this voltage in both healthy and diseased cells. Using microelectrodes, he determined that healthy cells exhibit a voltage range of 70 to 100 millivolts (mV), with heart cells showing the highest values, up to 100 mV. The cell membrane, measuring approximately 10 nanometers in thickness, generates an electric field of 10,000,000 V/m, a magnitude comparable to that of lightning. Electricity is verily the spark and engine of life!
If we drill down even farther, we find that it is ATP (adenosine triphosphate) - the energetic molecule of life - which "charges up" the cellular transmembrane potential (TMP). ATP is synthesized in the mitochondria, which are the powerhouses of each cell. The average cell has around 1000-2000 mitochondria that generate ATP, and these little power plants that energize life are also highly electric. While standard molecular biology teaches that ATP is generated by proton pumps driven by the electron transport chain, what is not usually mentioned is that strong electric fields are equally, if not more, important in generating ATP. Just as cells have a voltage of around 70 mV, mitochondria have a stored voltage of around 200 mV (the mitochondrial membrane potential, or MMP). While glucose is the main starting fuel for ATP and oxygen, the last electron acceptor, it is the mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) (along with proton gradients) that really drives ATP or energy in the body!
Unlike electric eels, which possess specialized organs to generate electrical discharges, human bioelectricity originates at the cellular level and is propagated through tissues, organs, and the entire body. The human body comprises approximately 30 to 40 trillion cells, each functioning much like a wet-cell battery. Several decades ago, Nobel Prize laureate Dr. Otto Warburg demonstrated that cells maintain a voltage across their membrane, known as the transmembrane potential (TMP), which is comparable to the voltage of a battery. Warburg quantified this voltage in both healthy and diseased cells. Using microelectrodes, he determined that healthy cells exhibit a voltage range of 70 to 100 millivolts (mV), with heart cells showing the highest values, up to 100 mV. The cell membrane, measuring approximately 10 nanometers in thickness, generates an electric field of 10,000,000 V/m, a magnitude comparable to that of lightning. Electricity is verily the spark and engine of life!
If we drill down even farther, we find that it is ATP (adenosine triphosphate) - the energetic molecule of life - which "charges up" the cellular transmembrane potential (TMP). ATP is synthesized in the mitochondria, which are the powerhouses of each cell. The average cell has around 1000-2000 mitochondria that generate ATP, and these little power plants that energize life are also highly electric. While standard molecular biology teaches that ATP is generated by proton pumps driven by the electron transport chain, what is not usually mentioned is that strong electric fields are equally, if not more, important in generating ATP. Just as cells have a voltage of around 70 mV, mitochondria have a stored voltage of around 200 mV (the mitochondrial membrane potential, or MMP). While glucose is the main starting fuel for ATP and oxygen, the last electron acceptor, it is the mitochondrial membrane potential (MMP) (along with proton gradients) that really drives ATP or energy in the body!
Dr. Warburg also found that due to the constant stress of modern life, along with a toxic environment and the aging process, cellular voltage drops with both age and the progression of diseases. People with chronic illnesses and chronic fatigue unilaterally had a diminished cellular voltage (30-50 millivolts). Cancer patients displayed the lowest voltage at less than 15-20 millivolts. And the cells are batteries powered by ATP, so with low cell voltage, it's hard to power all the functions in your body, which can lead to sickness, fatigue, and disease. You just cannot be healthy with a low cellular voltage, and you cannot get sick if your voltage is high. This is why you never hear of heart cancer, because heart cells have the highest cellular voltage of any cell in the body!
Even if we are not sick, studies have shown that after the age of 18, most individuals produce about 5-8% less ATP per decade [13,14]. This may not sound like much, but by the time you reach 60, you are likely down by 20-30%. More recent studies have shown an even more rapid decline. Unfortunately, the body's need for ATP does not decline with age, and in some cases, it actually increases. This decline in energy with age is one of the primary biomarkers of aging. We'll see evidence that PEMF increases ATP production, further confirming that PEMF therapy is a powerful anti-aging tool! By increasing ATP, PEMF has a "trickle up" effect that energizes not only cellular voltage but also tissue and organ voltages, as we'll see next.
Even if we are not sick, studies have shown that after the age of 18, most individuals produce about 5-8% less ATP per decade [13,14]. This may not sound like much, but by the time you reach 60, you are likely down by 20-30%. More recent studies have shown an even more rapid decline. Unfortunately, the body's need for ATP does not decline with age, and in some cases, it actually increases. This decline in energy with age is one of the primary biomarkers of aging. We'll see evidence that PEMF increases ATP production, further confirming that PEMF therapy is a powerful anti-aging tool! By increasing ATP, PEMF has a "trickle up" effect that energizes not only cellular voltage but also tissue and organ voltages, as we'll see next.
Organ Voltage and the Transepithelial Potential (TEP)
Just as the cell is surrounded by a plasma membrane (controlling what goes in and out), ALL of our organs are also bounded by an outer epithelium "membrane", including the largest organ in our body, our skin. It is like a "shrink-wrapped" layer of cells around organs that help dictate what goes in and out of each organ, and, more importantly, generate the organ's voltage or energy. Just as healthy cells have a measurable transmembrane potential (TMP) or voltage of 70-100 mV, this multi-layered epithelium generates a transepithelial potential (TEP) of 15-60 mV across itself. And just as healthy cells have a high cellular voltage and sick cells have a low voltage, healthy organs also have a high organ voltage, while sick organs have a low one. Simply put, health is optimal cellular and organ function, and sickness is low cellular and organ function.
How do the organs store voltage? While it gets a little complicated, essentially, this epithelial membrane surrounding all your organs (and the body with skin) is composed of specialized epithelial cells (connected by what are called gap junctions) that act together to form a surrounding membrane that creates this TEP or organ voltage. The TEP is primarily due to the polarized distribution of ion channels in the epithelial cells, with negative charges on the outside (sodium channels) and positive charges on the inside (K channels and Na/K pumps). The net effect is that your organs have a negative charge on the outside and a positive charge on the inside, resulting in an average voltage of 15-60 mV. Ultimately, the voltage or electrical energy in all our organs originates from the polarized cellular voltage of epithelial cells, which in turn stems from ATP. Essentially, the organs are big bioelectrical batteries (15-60 mV), and the cells are smaller bioelectrical batteries (70-90mV), and mitochondria are even smaller still (200 mV). In fact, the entire body is like a single, large battery that stores bioelectrical energy.
The transepithelial potential (TEP) of the skin and organs appears to decline not only with injuries and disease, but also with age. So if you think of the organs (and cells) as batteries, as we age and get sick, our batteries seem to "drain" over time. How fast or slow this happens depends on many variables, as well as whether we lead a healthy lifestyle. There is a notable study by Richard Nuccitelli that shows evidence of a decline in organ voltage with age. His study showed that the electric field (from the TEP) near human skin wounds declines by 48% with age. Using a new instrument, the Dermacorder®, Nuccitelli found that the mean lateral electric field in the space between the epidermis and stratum corneum adjacent to a lancet wound in 18-25 year olds is 107-148 mV/mm, 48% larger on average than that in 65-80 year olds [15]. Because younger people generally have high levels of bioelectricity, this is fundamentally why they heal faster! While I am jumping ahead a little in our story, PEMFs have a direct effect on improving skin wound-healing rates [16,17], which, in light of Nuccitelli's research, suggests that PEMFs might help slow the aging process by increasing organ voltage. While younger people may have higher bioelectricity and heal faster, even the elderly can boost their bioelectrical currents to youthful levels with a high-slew-rate PEMF device!
Just as the cell is surrounded by a plasma membrane (controlling what goes in and out), ALL of our organs are also bounded by an outer epithelium "membrane", including the largest organ in our body, our skin. It is like a "shrink-wrapped" layer of cells around organs that help dictate what goes in and out of each organ, and, more importantly, generate the organ's voltage or energy. Just as healthy cells have a measurable transmembrane potential (TMP) or voltage of 70-100 mV, this multi-layered epithelium generates a transepithelial potential (TEP) of 15-60 mV across itself. And just as healthy cells have a high cellular voltage and sick cells have a low voltage, healthy organs also have a high organ voltage, while sick organs have a low one. Simply put, health is optimal cellular and organ function, and sickness is low cellular and organ function.
How do the organs store voltage? While it gets a little complicated, essentially, this epithelial membrane surrounding all your organs (and the body with skin) is composed of specialized epithelial cells (connected by what are called gap junctions) that act together to form a surrounding membrane that creates this TEP or organ voltage. The TEP is primarily due to the polarized distribution of ion channels in the epithelial cells, with negative charges on the outside (sodium channels) and positive charges on the inside (K channels and Na/K pumps). The net effect is that your organs have a negative charge on the outside and a positive charge on the inside, resulting in an average voltage of 15-60 mV. Ultimately, the voltage or electrical energy in all our organs originates from the polarized cellular voltage of epithelial cells, which in turn stems from ATP. Essentially, the organs are big bioelectrical batteries (15-60 mV), and the cells are smaller bioelectrical batteries (70-90mV), and mitochondria are even smaller still (200 mV). In fact, the entire body is like a single, large battery that stores bioelectrical energy.
The transepithelial potential (TEP) of the skin and organs appears to decline not only with injuries and disease, but also with age. So if you think of the organs (and cells) as batteries, as we age and get sick, our batteries seem to "drain" over time. How fast or slow this happens depends on many variables, as well as whether we lead a healthy lifestyle. There is a notable study by Richard Nuccitelli that shows evidence of a decline in organ voltage with age. His study showed that the electric field (from the TEP) near human skin wounds declines by 48% with age. Using a new instrument, the Dermacorder®, Nuccitelli found that the mean lateral electric field in the space between the epidermis and stratum corneum adjacent to a lancet wound in 18-25 year olds is 107-148 mV/mm, 48% larger on average than that in 65-80 year olds [15]. Because younger people generally have high levels of bioelectricity, this is fundamentally why they heal faster! While I am jumping ahead a little in our story, PEMFs have a direct effect on improving skin wound-healing rates [16,17], which, in light of Nuccitelli's research, suggests that PEMFs might help slow the aging process by increasing organ voltage. While younger people may have higher bioelectricity and heal faster, even the elderly can boost their bioelectrical currents to youthful levels with a high-slew-rate PEMF device!
Injury Current Measured Accurately
Bioelectricity is the spark of life
― Dr. Michael Levin
Whenever you injure or wound yourself, like cutting your skin, you puncture this transepithelial layer, and the negative charge on the outside of the organ will rush into the inside of the organ. Due to the transepidermal potential of 15-60 mV, a low-resistance pathway forms through which bioelectrical current will flow. This flow of current from all regions around the wound generates an electric field that points toward the wound from every direction. The magnitude of this electric wound field ranges between 40 and 200 mV/mm in mammalian wounds, which decreases as the wound heals. These electric fields create measurable injury or wound currents, which in humans range from 1 to 100 µA/cm^2, with the skin having the highest potential and the highest currents - the main reason your skin regenerates so quickly from a cut. Many research papers have verified these wound fields and injury currents using the vibrating probe technique and other tests. While these injury currents have been known for over 150 years, they have only recently been accurately measured by Lionel Jaffe, Richard Nuccitelli, Michael Levin, and others [18-22].
Bioelectricity is the spark of life
― Dr. Michael Levin
Whenever you injure or wound yourself, like cutting your skin, you puncture this transepithelial layer, and the negative charge on the outside of the organ will rush into the inside of the organ. Due to the transepidermal potential of 15-60 mV, a low-resistance pathway forms through which bioelectrical current will flow. This flow of current from all regions around the wound generates an electric field that points toward the wound from every direction. The magnitude of this electric wound field ranges between 40 and 200 mV/mm in mammalian wounds, which decreases as the wound heals. These electric fields create measurable injury or wound currents, which in humans range from 1 to 100 µA/cm^2, with the skin having the highest potential and the highest currents - the main reason your skin regenerates so quickly from a cut. Many research papers have verified these wound fields and injury currents using the vibrating probe technique and other tests. While these injury currents have been known for over 150 years, they have only recently been accurately measured by Lionel Jaffe, Richard Nuccitelli, Michael Levin, and others [18-22].
Most cells in the human body have the ability to detect and respond to electrical currents and fields of these magnitudes. Galvanotaxis, or electrotaxis, is the directional movement of cells in response to an electric field. Galvanotaxis occurs during wound healing, where the surfaces of neutrophils, macrophages, fibroblasts, and epidermal cells involved in wound repair are electrically charged, causing them to migrate toward the injury current <see figure above>. Even nerve growth and the extension of new blood vessels are stimulated and guided by these energy fields [23]. By detecting and orienting themselves in an electric field, cells can direct their movement toward a wound, facilitating the repair and regeneration process. Michael Levin's research at Tufts University gets even better. These bioelectric fields actually form the guiding blueprint for the tissue that needs to be regenerated. Bioelectric fields and bioelectricity in the human body are not only energetic but also highly intelligent in guiding healing, remodeling, and regeneration. The details of this are beyond the scope of this book; however, refer to Michael Levin's research for more information [24-35].
Using Microcurrents and Energy Fields to Stimulate Wound Healing
Since these currents and fields guide healing and regeneration, we can supplement and boost these fields by applying electric currents, electric fields, and high-slew-rate PEMF (which induces microcurrents). There is extensive research dating back to the 1950s, and even earlier, that suggests using electric currents, electric fields, and PEMFs can induce healing currents and dramatically enhance and hasten the healing process. Sometimes, electrical stimulation can even jump-start stalled healing, as in non-union fractures.
But what are the best intensities of electric fields and currents to use to stimulate healing in the human body? It may not be a surprise, but research has shown that artificially enhancing these injury currents to levels close to the body's natural levels indeed increases the rate of wound closure and can facilitate the healing of injuries of all kinds across all tissue types [36-46]. When the body’s endogenous bioelectric system does not produce normal wound repair (like in the elderly or sick), therapeutic electrical currents may be delivered into the ‘repair field’ from an external source. The applied current may serve to mimic the failed natural bioelectric currents, thereby promoting wound healing. In human tissues, this range is 1-100 µA/cm^2. Transcellular current densities (cells) are in the range of 1-10 µA / cm² (including bone), and epithelial current densities (organs) are in the range of 10-100 μA / cm² [47]. Endogenous electric fields giving rise to these injury currents are in the range 40-200 mV/mm. Using current densities close to the body's natural strengths, numerous clinical trials have reported significant increases in healing rates, ranging from 13 to 50% [47]. Also, studies show that applied electrical fields equivalent to the body's natural fields direct cell migration, cell proliferation, and nerve sprouting at wounds [48,49].
It was perhaps first discovered by bioelectricity pioneer Elmer J. Lund in the early 1900s that establishing an artificial electrical field, producing a current mimicking the injury current, could facilitate regeneration [50]. That is, if we want to use microcurrents, electric fields, or PEMFs to heal the body, we need to ensure we use intensities close to the healing/injury currents and fields the human body naturally produces. Zhao, Forrester & McCaig in 1999 studied corneal epithelial cells in culture and found that cell division orientation is directed by small, applied electric fields. The field strength used was 150 mV/mm, which is within the range measured in many developing and regenerating systems [51]. It has been demonstrated by Friedenberg, Brighton, and others that, in fracture and bone healing, it is essential to utilize microcurrents within the naturally occurring range (1-100 µA/cm²) [52-54]. There are also studies by Vanable and others that use electric fields near the body or slightly above it to stimulate healing. Studies with high-slew-rate PEMF on bones show that results ONLY occur when the PEMF device induces electric fields and electric currents that mimic the bones' bioelectrical intensities in response to load [55-57]. However, if you use intensities that are too high, the healing is reduced [58-62]! A little more is beneficial because if the body is sick or stuck, it needs an extra boost or jump-start to get unstuck and initiate the healing process; however, too much is... too much!
Electric fields also enhance ATP production in cells involved in tissue repair. ATP is essential for powering cell migration and synthesizing new proteins and molecules required for tissue regeneration. Cheng demonstrated that currents of 10–1000 μA resulted in a three- to five-fold increase in ATP levels, whereas higher currents in the milliampere range reduced protein synthesis. These findings have significant clinical implications, including the stimulation of chronic wound healing [63-65].
This is just a sample; having read many studies by top bioelectrical researchers, a common theme is to use electric currents and electric fields that are the same as, or only slightly higher than, the body's natural and endogenous energies. When you go too high, the healing goes down. As we will see throughout this book, one of the primary goals of PEMF therapy is to induce healing electric fields and microcurrents that closely approximate the intensities of the body's own natural endogenous electric fields and injury currents. We'll also see, with slew-rate PEMF, that using just the right slew rate induces healing microcurrents in these natural and therapeutic ranges.
High-intensity PEMF units that cause muscles to fasciculate (involuntary twitching and contraction) are too high. One study [66] demonstrated that currents of around 1700-2000 µA/cm^2 are required for muscle fasciculation. So, if a PEMF device is causing your muscles to twitch, it is inducing microcurrents 20 to 2000 times stronger than the body's natural currents. While it depends on the slew rate, muscle twitching typically occurs only with PEMF devices exceeding 1000 gauss (100 mT), which is too much! More on this later.
While applying external microcurrents and electric fields to the body using intensities that are on par with the intensities of the body's natural endogenous currents and fields is certainly beneficial, there are several clear advantages of PEMF over microcurrent and electric field modalities, especially medium intensity and high-slew-rate PEMF, which we will explore next.
Since these currents and fields guide healing and regeneration, we can supplement and boost these fields by applying electric currents, electric fields, and high-slew-rate PEMF (which induces microcurrents). There is extensive research dating back to the 1950s, and even earlier, that suggests using electric currents, electric fields, and PEMFs can induce healing currents and dramatically enhance and hasten the healing process. Sometimes, electrical stimulation can even jump-start stalled healing, as in non-union fractures.
But what are the best intensities of electric fields and currents to use to stimulate healing in the human body? It may not be a surprise, but research has shown that artificially enhancing these injury currents to levels close to the body's natural levels indeed increases the rate of wound closure and can facilitate the healing of injuries of all kinds across all tissue types [36-46]. When the body’s endogenous bioelectric system does not produce normal wound repair (like in the elderly or sick), therapeutic electrical currents may be delivered into the ‘repair field’ from an external source. The applied current may serve to mimic the failed natural bioelectric currents, thereby promoting wound healing. In human tissues, this range is 1-100 µA/cm^2. Transcellular current densities (cells) are in the range of 1-10 µA / cm² (including bone), and epithelial current densities (organs) are in the range of 10-100 μA / cm² [47]. Endogenous electric fields giving rise to these injury currents are in the range 40-200 mV/mm. Using current densities close to the body's natural strengths, numerous clinical trials have reported significant increases in healing rates, ranging from 13 to 50% [47]. Also, studies show that applied electrical fields equivalent to the body's natural fields direct cell migration, cell proliferation, and nerve sprouting at wounds [48,49].
It was perhaps first discovered by bioelectricity pioneer Elmer J. Lund in the early 1900s that establishing an artificial electrical field, producing a current mimicking the injury current, could facilitate regeneration [50]. That is, if we want to use microcurrents, electric fields, or PEMFs to heal the body, we need to ensure we use intensities close to the healing/injury currents and fields the human body naturally produces. Zhao, Forrester & McCaig in 1999 studied corneal epithelial cells in culture and found that cell division orientation is directed by small, applied electric fields. The field strength used was 150 mV/mm, which is within the range measured in many developing and regenerating systems [51]. It has been demonstrated by Friedenberg, Brighton, and others that, in fracture and bone healing, it is essential to utilize microcurrents within the naturally occurring range (1-100 µA/cm²) [52-54]. There are also studies by Vanable and others that use electric fields near the body or slightly above it to stimulate healing. Studies with high-slew-rate PEMF on bones show that results ONLY occur when the PEMF device induces electric fields and electric currents that mimic the bones' bioelectrical intensities in response to load [55-57]. However, if you use intensities that are too high, the healing is reduced [58-62]! A little more is beneficial because if the body is sick or stuck, it needs an extra boost or jump-start to get unstuck and initiate the healing process; however, too much is... too much!
Electric fields also enhance ATP production in cells involved in tissue repair. ATP is essential for powering cell migration and synthesizing new proteins and molecules required for tissue regeneration. Cheng demonstrated that currents of 10–1000 μA resulted in a three- to five-fold increase in ATP levels, whereas higher currents in the milliampere range reduced protein synthesis. These findings have significant clinical implications, including the stimulation of chronic wound healing [63-65].
This is just a sample; having read many studies by top bioelectrical researchers, a common theme is to use electric currents and electric fields that are the same as, or only slightly higher than, the body's natural and endogenous energies. When you go too high, the healing goes down. As we will see throughout this book, one of the primary goals of PEMF therapy is to induce healing electric fields and microcurrents that closely approximate the intensities of the body's own natural endogenous electric fields and injury currents. We'll also see, with slew-rate PEMF, that using just the right slew rate induces healing microcurrents in these natural and therapeutic ranges.
High-intensity PEMF units that cause muscles to fasciculate (involuntary twitching and contraction) are too high. One study [66] demonstrated that currents of around 1700-2000 µA/cm^2 are required for muscle fasciculation. So, if a PEMF device is causing your muscles to twitch, it is inducing microcurrents 20 to 2000 times stronger than the body's natural currents. While it depends on the slew rate, muscle twitching typically occurs only with PEMF devices exceeding 1000 gauss (100 mT), which is too much! More on this later.
While applying external microcurrents and electric fields to the body using intensities that are on par with the intensities of the body's natural endogenous currents and fields is certainly beneficial, there are several clear advantages of PEMF over microcurrent and electric field modalities, especially medium intensity and high-slew-rate PEMF, which we will explore next.
The Serendipitous Shift from Microcurrents to PEMF
In the 1970s, clinicians began implanting electrodes in bone to deliver direct electrical currents and treat non-union fractures. And during this time, Arthur Pilla, an electrochemist, was traveling to San Diego for a conference (which included Robert O Becker as a guest speaker). He sat next to a guy on an airplane who was reviewing some slides. It was said that Arthur was so nosy that he was peeking at his seatmate's slides, and the seatmate was Andrew Bassett, an orthopedic surgeon. Arthur saw something that was obvious to him as an electrochemist which was dendritic outgrowth - a process in electronics where the metal grows whiskers that cause it to short. He assumed Dr. Bassett was going to the electrochemist meeting, and the stranger said, "Nope, that was bone growing from an electrode", and he was going to the very SAME orthopedic meeting.
So, these two guys instantly hit it off, and Arthur traveled back to Bassett's lab after the meetings and proposed that, rather than surgically inserting electrodes into both sides of a non-healing wound, as Bassett and other orthopedists had been doing, they simply pulse an electromagnetic field from the outside. They initially studied this on beagles, then on humans with non-union fractures to obtain regulatory approval for a bone growth stimulator they developed together. As a result of Bassett's and Pilla's work, PEMF therapy has been FDA-approved in the United States since 1979 for the safe and effective treatment of non-union fractures and to aid in spinal fusion operations. To obtain this status, numerous studies were conducted to document the success of PEMF, its lack of side effects, and the mechanisms underlying energy field methods. The <figure below> shows the PEMF system developed by Bassett and his colleagues using coils placed near a bone fracture to induce current flows through a fracture site.
The scientific evidence is that PEMF therapy is effective because it conveys 'information' that triggers specific repair activities within the body. The currents induced in tissues by PEMF mimic the natural electrical activities created within bones during movement. Pulsing magnetic fields initiate a cascade of activities, from the cell membrane to the nucleus and on to the gene level, where specific changes take place. In his last scientific paper, orthopedic surgeon and medical researcher Bassett explained [67]:
Jump starting a car with a dead battery creates an operational machine; exposure of a nonunion to PEMFs can convert a stalled healing process to active repair, even in patients unhealed for as long as 40 years!
In the 1970s, clinicians began implanting electrodes in bone to deliver direct electrical currents and treat non-union fractures. And during this time, Arthur Pilla, an electrochemist, was traveling to San Diego for a conference (which included Robert O Becker as a guest speaker). He sat next to a guy on an airplane who was reviewing some slides. It was said that Arthur was so nosy that he was peeking at his seatmate's slides, and the seatmate was Andrew Bassett, an orthopedic surgeon. Arthur saw something that was obvious to him as an electrochemist which was dendritic outgrowth - a process in electronics where the metal grows whiskers that cause it to short. He assumed Dr. Bassett was going to the electrochemist meeting, and the stranger said, "Nope, that was bone growing from an electrode", and he was going to the very SAME orthopedic meeting.
So, these two guys instantly hit it off, and Arthur traveled back to Bassett's lab after the meetings and proposed that, rather than surgically inserting electrodes into both sides of a non-healing wound, as Bassett and other orthopedists had been doing, they simply pulse an electromagnetic field from the outside. They initially studied this on beagles, then on humans with non-union fractures to obtain regulatory approval for a bone growth stimulator they developed together. As a result of Bassett's and Pilla's work, PEMF therapy has been FDA-approved in the United States since 1979 for the safe and effective treatment of non-union fractures and to aid in spinal fusion operations. To obtain this status, numerous studies were conducted to document the success of PEMF, its lack of side effects, and the mechanisms underlying energy field methods. The <figure below> shows the PEMF system developed by Bassett and his colleagues using coils placed near a bone fracture to induce current flows through a fracture site.
The scientific evidence is that PEMF therapy is effective because it conveys 'information' that triggers specific repair activities within the body. The currents induced in tissues by PEMF mimic the natural electrical activities created within bones during movement. Pulsing magnetic fields initiate a cascade of activities, from the cell membrane to the nucleus and on to the gene level, where specific changes take place. In his last scientific paper, orthopedic surgeon and medical researcher Bassett explained [67]:
Jump starting a car with a dead battery creates an operational machine; exposure of a nonunion to PEMFs can convert a stalled healing process to active repair, even in patients unhealed for as long as 40 years!
The Benefits of High-Slew-Rate PEMF Therapy over Microcurrent Therapy
Unlike electric currents, the human body is transparent to magnetic fields, making PEMF superior to microcurrent therapy in many ways. Because magnetic fields are dipoles (and there are no magnetic monopoles), they cannot be blocked, shielded, or slowed. That is, north and south poles always appear together in magnets and magnetic fields. Because of this, PEMFs go through your body unimpeded, like wind blowing across a grassy field! I have conducted numerous tests with people lying on a PEMF, measuring the intensity at a precise distance above them, and then measuring the same distance above the mat with no one on it. The intensity is the SAME. No other form of electromagnetic energy passes through the body like this.
Conversely, microcurrents, being conduction-based, are blocked by the skin and tissues through impedance/resistance, so they do not penetrate as well as PEMF (hence why they need to be surgically implanted for deep-tissue applications, such as bone fractures). Additionally, microcurrents can be rerouted away from the target area if there is a path of lower resistance, such as sweat or any moisture on the skin. Also, microcurrents cannot cover as large a volume (or as evenly) as high-slew-rate PEMFs can through properly engineered, larger coils. To cover a large area with microcurrent therapy, you need many electrodes on the bare skin (and a conductive gel applied). PEMF therapy is easy to use, even over clothing, casts, bandages, and other protective coverings, reaching deep tissues and lesions, and no messy gels are required. Finally, electrical stimulation or microcurrent therapy can be uncomfortable, as the electrical currents can irritate muscles and nerves, especially with higher-powered TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation).
A medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF full-body mat device penetrates deeper. It covers a larger volume of tissue (and more uniformly) than conduction-based technologies such as TENS, Estim (Electrical stimulation), and other micro-current stimulation devices on the market. And with many whole body PEMF mat options available, you can apply PEMFs on the entire body at once, inducing healing microcurrents from head to toe! Also, it is worth noting that one study shows that PEMF is more effective than TENS or electrical stimulation for pain relief [68].
Unlike electric currents, the human body is transparent to magnetic fields, making PEMF superior to microcurrent therapy in many ways. Because magnetic fields are dipoles (and there are no magnetic monopoles), they cannot be blocked, shielded, or slowed. That is, north and south poles always appear together in magnets and magnetic fields. Because of this, PEMFs go through your body unimpeded, like wind blowing across a grassy field! I have conducted numerous tests with people lying on a PEMF, measuring the intensity at a precise distance above them, and then measuring the same distance above the mat with no one on it. The intensity is the SAME. No other form of electromagnetic energy passes through the body like this.
Conversely, microcurrents, being conduction-based, are blocked by the skin and tissues through impedance/resistance, so they do not penetrate as well as PEMF (hence why they need to be surgically implanted for deep-tissue applications, such as bone fractures). Additionally, microcurrents can be rerouted away from the target area if there is a path of lower resistance, such as sweat or any moisture on the skin. Also, microcurrents cannot cover as large a volume (or as evenly) as high-slew-rate PEMFs can through properly engineered, larger coils. To cover a large area with microcurrent therapy, you need many electrodes on the bare skin (and a conductive gel applied). PEMF therapy is easy to use, even over clothing, casts, bandages, and other protective coverings, reaching deep tissues and lesions, and no messy gels are required. Finally, electrical stimulation or microcurrent therapy can be uncomfortable, as the electrical currents can irritate muscles and nerves, especially with higher-powered TENS (Transcutaneous Electrical Nerve Stimulation).
A medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF full-body mat device penetrates deeper. It covers a larger volume of tissue (and more uniformly) than conduction-based technologies such as TENS, Estim (Electrical stimulation), and other micro-current stimulation devices on the market. And with many whole body PEMF mat options available, you can apply PEMFs on the entire body at once, inducing healing microcurrents from head to toe! Also, it is worth noting that one study shows that PEMF is more effective than TENS or electrical stimulation for pain relief [68].
High-Slew-Rate PEMF is 3D Microcurrent Therapy
One final advantage of PEMF over more general forms of microcurrent stimulation is that, when properly applied, high-slew-rate PEMF pulses are transformed into induced electrical signals that mimic known electrical signals within living tissues, utilizing the body's conductive pathways and electrolytes. Therefore, PEMF can utilize the native signal reception and amplification mechanisms within living cells/tissues, thereby requiring only extremely low stimulation energy to achieve the desired cellular response. So, PEMFs induce natural ionic and bioelectric currents within the body, rather than adding artificial electrical currents via electrodes to the body (like TENS, Estim, etc.).
In our discussion of healing currents or injury currents, we noted that the body utilizes electrical microcurrents at various stages of the healing process. The fundamental reason we need a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF is that it is required to induce a sufficiently high level of these therapeutic microcurrents, which are natural and native to the body. So, in a way, PEMF is just as much microcurrent therapy as it is magnetic field therapy, if not more so. High-slew-rate (HSR) PEMF is essentially 3D microcurrent therapy, providing all the benefits of microcurrent therapy in a safer, deeper, and more effective way. And the slew-rate research shows that the ideal slew rates (which we will explore next) mimic the body's natural healing microcurrents.
One final advantage of PEMF over more general forms of microcurrent stimulation is that, when properly applied, high-slew-rate PEMF pulses are transformed into induced electrical signals that mimic known electrical signals within living tissues, utilizing the body's conductive pathways and electrolytes. Therefore, PEMF can utilize the native signal reception and amplification mechanisms within living cells/tissues, thereby requiring only extremely low stimulation energy to achieve the desired cellular response. So, PEMFs induce natural ionic and bioelectric currents within the body, rather than adding artificial electrical currents via electrodes to the body (like TENS, Estim, etc.).
In our discussion of healing currents or injury currents, we noted that the body utilizes electrical microcurrents at various stages of the healing process. The fundamental reason we need a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF is that it is required to induce a sufficiently high level of these therapeutic microcurrents, which are natural and native to the body. So, in a way, PEMF is just as much microcurrent therapy as it is magnetic field therapy, if not more so. High-slew-rate (HSR) PEMF is essentially 3D microcurrent therapy, providing all the benefits of microcurrent therapy in a safer, deeper, and more effective way. And the slew-rate research shows that the ideal slew rates (which we will explore next) mimic the body's natural healing microcurrents.
High-Slew-Rate PEMF Acts Like a Whole-Body Battery Recharger
Through Faraday's law of induction, high-slew-rate (HSR) PEMF creates an EMF or voltage that charges your tissue and cells, much like wireless charging plates and pads charging your phone and other smart devices. It does this by driving charged particles (positive and negative ions, such as Na+, K+, Cl-, Ca2+, and Mg2+) into small circuits in organs, tissues, and, most importantly, around cells. At the cellular level, these eddy currents circulate charges around the membranes of cells and mitochondria (in ways that mimic exercise), increasing cellular voltage, ATP production, and the body's overall bioelectricity! Indeed, life and health are driven by the flow and storage of electrical charge, and high-slew-rate PEMF acts like a whole-body battery recharger, recharging your 30-40 trillion cells. Below is a brief list of some of the most fundamental benefits of using a high-slew-rate PEMF device to "jump start" the body’s ability to heal and regenerate itself of just about anything (as well as shut off pain and inflammation)! Again, the main goal of PEMF is to stimulate natural healing microcurrents, which requires a medium intensity/high-slew-rate! Low-intensity PEMF is not enough [69,70], and high-intensity PEMF is too much [71-78].
Below is a list of the most fundamental mechanisms of High-Slew-Rate (HSR) PEMF which helps the body to heal itself of just about anything!
[1] PEMF can influence adult stem cells - More intensity is NOT better when it comes to stem cells [97].
Through Faraday's law of induction, high-slew-rate (HSR) PEMF creates an EMF or voltage that charges your tissue and cells, much like wireless charging plates and pads charging your phone and other smart devices. It does this by driving charged particles (positive and negative ions, such as Na+, K+, Cl-, Ca2+, and Mg2+) into small circuits in organs, tissues, and, most importantly, around cells. At the cellular level, these eddy currents circulate charges around the membranes of cells and mitochondria (in ways that mimic exercise), increasing cellular voltage, ATP production, and the body's overall bioelectricity! Indeed, life and health are driven by the flow and storage of electrical charge, and high-slew-rate PEMF acts like a whole-body battery recharger, recharging your 30-40 trillion cells. Below is a brief list of some of the most fundamental benefits of using a high-slew-rate PEMF device to "jump start" the body’s ability to heal and regenerate itself of just about anything (as well as shut off pain and inflammation)! Again, the main goal of PEMF is to stimulate natural healing microcurrents, which requires a medium intensity/high-slew-rate! Low-intensity PEMF is not enough [69,70], and high-intensity PEMF is too much [71-78].
Below is a list of the most fundamental mechanisms of High-Slew-Rate (HSR) PEMF which helps the body to heal itself of just about anything!
- HSR PEMF increases electron flow in the mitochondria, leading to increased ATP energy [79-83] plus up to a 300-400% increase in mitochondrial density (mitochondrial biogenesis) [82,84]
- HSR PEMF acts like a whole-body battery recharger, recharging cellular voltage or transmembrane potential (TMP) & bodily organ voltage (TEP) [85-87]
- HSR PEMF acts as an exercise mimetic (emulates exercise), which creates movements of charges around the cells that mimic exercise, and which leads to pro-survival and cell protective signaling [88]
- HSR PEMF increases cellular antioxidants, resiliency and protective factors - SOD, Catalase, Glutathione Peroxidase and HSP70, stimulates NRF2 pathway [89-91]
- HSR PEMF has a potent anti-inflammatory effect by increasing electron flows that quench free radicals and turn off inflammation [92-97]
- HSR PEMF stimulates the production of nitric oxide (NO), which improves microcirculation, oxygenation, and enhanced lymphatic flow. It was confirmed by scientists from the Mayo clinic in a randomized clinical trial, that PEMF boosts NO and modulates blood pressure [98-101].
- HSR PEMF acts like whole body needle-less acupuncture, stimulating the flow of energy in the meridians [102-103]. One study showed PEMF works better than acupuncture for pain relief [102].
- HSR PEMF stimulates bones/collagen/joints via the piezoelectric effect, which mimics exercise (Wolff's Law). This helps to strengthen both the bones and joints! [103-108]
- HSR PEMF stimulates various growth factors and stem cells, leading to the creation of new healthy tissue, helping the Body to heal and regenerate from just about everything! [97,108-111].[1]
- HSR PEMF has a direct effect on RBC activity by increasing the charge on red blood cells. Properly charged red blood cells will repel from one another. Aside from preventing the Rouleaux effect, this separation of RBCs allows for a greater available surface area for oxygen and nutrients to be absorbed and exchanged. [112,113]
- HSR PEMF increases healthy electroporesis, which makes the cells more porous to allow more nutrients and oxygen in and waste products out. This is like helping the cells breathe better! [114-116]
[1] PEMF can influence adult stem cells - More intensity is NOT better when it comes to stem cells [97].
The Big Picture
So, you can see the big picture of how PEMF works in the image here. First, a PEMF device generates a changing electrical signal, such as a square wave, which is then sent to the PEMF coils. According to Ampère's Law, this electrical current generates a magnetic field surrounding the coils, similar to that of a bar magnet. This is the original driving signal that is produced by the electronic circuit within the PEMF device. But because the signal pulses or changes with time, the magnetic field will vibrate and oscillate in ways that correspond to the source signal. To induce the desired electrical fields in tissue that mimic the body's natural healing or injury currents, it is essential to use a properly engineered high slew-rate signal. As we will see, this requires not only the right medium-intensity/high slew-rate signal but also proper coils for deep penetration.
The faster a signal changes with time (high-slew-rate), the more energy is transferred and the greater the biological effect until the biological response reaches a maximum[1]. Fast-changing signals like square waves and sharp impulses induce more energy than slow-changing signals like sine waves. This induced EMF produces microcurrents in your cells, tissues, and organs, charging your body like a whole-body battery recharging plate. You can also think of high-slew-rate PEMF devices, such as 3D microcurrent therapy, which induce healing microcurrents that offer numerous benefits outlined in the previous section. We also outlined several reasons why high-slew-rate PEMF works better and faster than traditional microcurrent therapies, such as TENS and Estim. In the next chapter we'll explore the best slew rate to use based on biophysics and PEMF research.
[1] Research has shown with bone stimulation - even early on- that the induced field must be similar to the body's native bioelectricity or it will not work. That is, if the slew rate is too high (like to the point of making your muscles involuntarily twitch), there is too much induced microcurrent, and the healing process goes DOWN [71-78], and sometimes even makes things worse [53], so more is not better!
So, you can see the big picture of how PEMF works in the image here. First, a PEMF device generates a changing electrical signal, such as a square wave, which is then sent to the PEMF coils. According to Ampère's Law, this electrical current generates a magnetic field surrounding the coils, similar to that of a bar magnet. This is the original driving signal that is produced by the electronic circuit within the PEMF device. But because the signal pulses or changes with time, the magnetic field will vibrate and oscillate in ways that correspond to the source signal. To induce the desired electrical fields in tissue that mimic the body's natural healing or injury currents, it is essential to use a properly engineered high slew-rate signal. As we will see, this requires not only the right medium-intensity/high slew-rate signal but also proper coils for deep penetration.
The faster a signal changes with time (high-slew-rate), the more energy is transferred and the greater the biological effect until the biological response reaches a maximum[1]. Fast-changing signals like square waves and sharp impulses induce more energy than slow-changing signals like sine waves. This induced EMF produces microcurrents in your cells, tissues, and organs, charging your body like a whole-body battery recharging plate. You can also think of high-slew-rate PEMF devices, such as 3D microcurrent therapy, which induce healing microcurrents that offer numerous benefits outlined in the previous section. We also outlined several reasons why high-slew-rate PEMF works better and faster than traditional microcurrent therapies, such as TENS and Estim. In the next chapter we'll explore the best slew rate to use based on biophysics and PEMF research.
[1] Research has shown with bone stimulation - even early on- that the induced field must be similar to the body's native bioelectricity or it will not work. That is, if the slew rate is too high (like to the point of making your muscles involuntarily twitch), there is too much induced microcurrent, and the healing process goes DOWN [71-78], and sometimes even makes things worse [53], so more is not better!
Chapter 3:
The Best PEMF Signal to Create a High-Slew-Rate
Rapidly time-varying electromagnetic fields exert a very potent effect on the proliferation, morphology, and gene expression of the cells in culture.
― Dr Thomas Goodwin (NASA Johnson Space Center)
Now that we have glimpsed many of the fundamental healing benefits of high-slew-rate PEMF and why it is superior to any type of microcurrent therapy, let us turn to PEMF research to uncover the optimal slew rate. Based on my deep dive into the science and research of PEMF over the past year and a half, the epiphany for me is that what best heals the body is not matching the PEMF intensity to the Earth, but rather the goal of PEMF should be inducing healing microcurrents that match or mimic the human body's natural bioelectricity or "healing currents." This requires a medium-intensity PEMF (10-100 gauss) with a fast rise time, such as a square wave.
What excites me is that both research and physics support this! The research on both high-slew-rate PEMF and the body's natural bioelectrical healing currents, as well as the physics of Faraday's law of induction, which is essentially the slew rate. We'll explore the high-slew-rate studies in much detail in this chapter, but it is worth briefly mentioning that physics also supports the need for a high-slew-rate. You see, magnetic fields themselves do no work[1], it is the induced electric fields that drive healing microcurrents. To create a sufficiently strong induced electric field to duplicate that body, we need a high-slew-rate PEMF signal, such as a square wave.
Low-intensity resonance-only PEMF devices lack sufficient slew rate and power to accomplish this task as effectively [1-7]. Low intensity does work, but not nearly as well, ESPECIALLY for pain, inflammation, healing, recovery, and regeneration! I realized the low-intensity device I had been recommending for so long used a square wave on the local applicators, which had a good slew rate. I noticed, through my own experience and helping hundreds of others with this device, that the main pain-relieving benefits came from the local applicators using this square wave, not the full-body mat, which employed a low-intensity, low-slew-rate sawtooth wave. In fact, I had several customers achieve very little results with pain using this low-intensity PEMF full-body mat. As soon as I instructed them to focus on the local applicators and crank it up, which had a better slew rate, they began to see results. The device I now recommend is a medium intensity (10-100 gauss). Not only does it have a higher slew rate on the local applicators, but it also has a significantly higher slew rate on the full-body mat. This naturally leads us to the question: what is the best slew rate to mimic the body's bioelectricity and induce healing and regeneration?
[1] The work-energy theorem states that the work done on a system equals the change in its kinetic energy. The reason magnetic fields can do no work (speed up or slow down charges, which is the requisite change in kinetic energy) is that work in physics is the integral of the dot product of force and the displacement differential along the path of motion 𝑓⋅𝑑𝑟. The Lorentz force law shows that magnetic fields are always perpendicular to the direction of motion. Therefore, magnetic fields can do no work because the dot product of the magnetic force and the direction of the moving charge is always zero; only induced electric fields (which then create healing microcurrents) from rapidly changing magnetic fields in PEMF can do work!
The Best PEMF Signal to Create a High-Slew-Rate
Rapidly time-varying electromagnetic fields exert a very potent effect on the proliferation, morphology, and gene expression of the cells in culture.
― Dr Thomas Goodwin (NASA Johnson Space Center)
Now that we have glimpsed many of the fundamental healing benefits of high-slew-rate PEMF and why it is superior to any type of microcurrent therapy, let us turn to PEMF research to uncover the optimal slew rate. Based on my deep dive into the science and research of PEMF over the past year and a half, the epiphany for me is that what best heals the body is not matching the PEMF intensity to the Earth, but rather the goal of PEMF should be inducing healing microcurrents that match or mimic the human body's natural bioelectricity or "healing currents." This requires a medium-intensity PEMF (10-100 gauss) with a fast rise time, such as a square wave.
What excites me is that both research and physics support this! The research on both high-slew-rate PEMF and the body's natural bioelectrical healing currents, as well as the physics of Faraday's law of induction, which is essentially the slew rate. We'll explore the high-slew-rate studies in much detail in this chapter, but it is worth briefly mentioning that physics also supports the need for a high-slew-rate. You see, magnetic fields themselves do no work[1], it is the induced electric fields that drive healing microcurrents. To create a sufficiently strong induced electric field to duplicate that body, we need a high-slew-rate PEMF signal, such as a square wave.
Low-intensity resonance-only PEMF devices lack sufficient slew rate and power to accomplish this task as effectively [1-7]. Low intensity does work, but not nearly as well, ESPECIALLY for pain, inflammation, healing, recovery, and regeneration! I realized the low-intensity device I had been recommending for so long used a square wave on the local applicators, which had a good slew rate. I noticed, through my own experience and helping hundreds of others with this device, that the main pain-relieving benefits came from the local applicators using this square wave, not the full-body mat, which employed a low-intensity, low-slew-rate sawtooth wave. In fact, I had several customers achieve very little results with pain using this low-intensity PEMF full-body mat. As soon as I instructed them to focus on the local applicators and crank it up, which had a better slew rate, they began to see results. The device I now recommend is a medium intensity (10-100 gauss). Not only does it have a higher slew rate on the local applicators, but it also has a significantly higher slew rate on the full-body mat. This naturally leads us to the question: what is the best slew rate to mimic the body's bioelectricity and induce healing and regeneration?
[1] The work-energy theorem states that the work done on a system equals the change in its kinetic energy. The reason magnetic fields can do no work (speed up or slow down charges, which is the requisite change in kinetic energy) is that work in physics is the integral of the dot product of force and the displacement differential along the path of motion 𝑓⋅𝑑𝑟. The Lorentz force law shows that magnetic fields are always perpendicular to the direction of motion. Therefore, magnetic fields can do no work because the dot product of the magnetic force and the direction of the moving charge is always zero; only induced electric fields (which then create healing microcurrents) from rapidly changing magnetic fields in PEMF can do work!
If we examine the history of PEMF research, the first mention of inductive coupling or slew rate as the key healing parameter was in a 1974 paper by Bassett and Pilla, entitled "Augmentation of Bone Repair by Inductively Coupled Electromagnetic Fields" [24]. In more recent times, the most notable study that highlighted the importance of slew rate (dB/dt) was the landmark NASA study by Thomas Goodwin and Robert Dennis in 2003. NASA found that slew rate (dB/dt) was the most important parameter in PEMF and selected 10 Hz due to its rich history and connection to Earth's Geomagnetic Frequency. NASA found a high-slew-rate PEMF signal upregulated 160 growth factors and regenerative genes, and increased neuronal stem cells by 400% [25]. NASA confirmed that fast-changing magnetic fields with a high-slew-rate create more induced energy than slowly changing magnetic fields with a low slew rate. Steady or static magnetic fields produced no effect.
You can see from the <image here>, from the 2003 NASA study, that the square wave had significantly better regenerative effects than the triangle, sine, and steady (constant) PEMF signals. A delta signal (straight up impulse function) performed second best. The numbered squares in this image (1-5) represent the amount of neuronal stem cells that were created by five different signals: steady/static, sine wave, triangle wave, delta impulse, and the square wave, with the zero slide being a no signal or control[1]. We can clearly see the most stem cells using the square wave, which, of course, means better healing and regeneration (the dark spots represent the stem cells, while the white areas are empty). When you truly understand slew rate and how a higher slew rate induces more current and energy to the body and cells, it becomes obvious why a square wave signal is easily the best signal for PEMF therapy, as it has both a sharp rise and fall time (a steep slope). Low magnetic slew rates (low dB/dt = much less energy transferred into the body) are found in dull or slowly changing magnetic fields, such as sine waves and slowly changing triangle waves. The slower, lower-slew-rate signals are much less effective, as the 2003 NASA study and hundreds of other studies have definitively shown!
In this NASA study, although not reported, there were 300–400% increases in mitochondrial densities (also known as mitochondrial biogenesis) after 10–12 days of treatment [26] in appropriate oxidative stress pre-sets in nearly all tissues reviewed. Mitochondrial biogenesis is the process by which cells increase the number and mass of mitochondria, which are the powerhouses of the cell. More mitochondria = more energy = better health! So high-slew-rate PEMF fundamentally increases your overall energy and vitality, even if you are healthy, while also promoting healing in your body if you are sick or injured. The primary key to healing is slew rate, not intensity or frequency.
[1] Important note*: PEMF signals measured in the field are never perfect square waves because no electronics can change infinitely fast. The key is a sharp rising (or falling) edge and the actual measured slew rate, as determined by a proper instrument, such as a Hall-effect probe that can accurately measure fast-changing magnetic fields. For simplicity, throughout this book I will interchangeably use both "high slew rate" and "square wave" to refer to a fast changing PEMF signal. I do this because most PEMF companies market their fast-changing signals as "square waves", though technically they never are. My preference would be if entire PEMF industry adopted the termology of "high slew rate" and stopped using "square wave", but until that happens, I will still use the term "square wave" throughout this book, because that is what people are most familiar hearing.
You can see from the <image here>, from the 2003 NASA study, that the square wave had significantly better regenerative effects than the triangle, sine, and steady (constant) PEMF signals. A delta signal (straight up impulse function) performed second best. The numbered squares in this image (1-5) represent the amount of neuronal stem cells that were created by five different signals: steady/static, sine wave, triangle wave, delta impulse, and the square wave, with the zero slide being a no signal or control[1]. We can clearly see the most stem cells using the square wave, which, of course, means better healing and regeneration (the dark spots represent the stem cells, while the white areas are empty). When you truly understand slew rate and how a higher slew rate induces more current and energy to the body and cells, it becomes obvious why a square wave signal is easily the best signal for PEMF therapy, as it has both a sharp rise and fall time (a steep slope). Low magnetic slew rates (low dB/dt = much less energy transferred into the body) are found in dull or slowly changing magnetic fields, such as sine waves and slowly changing triangle waves. The slower, lower-slew-rate signals are much less effective, as the 2003 NASA study and hundreds of other studies have definitively shown!
In this NASA study, although not reported, there were 300–400% increases in mitochondrial densities (also known as mitochondrial biogenesis) after 10–12 days of treatment [26] in appropriate oxidative stress pre-sets in nearly all tissues reviewed. Mitochondrial biogenesis is the process by which cells increase the number and mass of mitochondria, which are the powerhouses of the cell. More mitochondria = more energy = better health! So high-slew-rate PEMF fundamentally increases your overall energy and vitality, even if you are healthy, while also promoting healing in your body if you are sick or injured. The primary key to healing is slew rate, not intensity or frequency.
[1] Important note*: PEMF signals measured in the field are never perfect square waves because no electronics can change infinitely fast. The key is a sharp rising (or falling) edge and the actual measured slew rate, as determined by a proper instrument, such as a Hall-effect probe that can accurately measure fast-changing magnetic fields. For simplicity, throughout this book I will interchangeably use both "high slew rate" and "square wave" to refer to a fast changing PEMF signal. I do this because most PEMF companies market their fast-changing signals as "square waves", though technically they never are. My preference would be if entire PEMF industry adopted the termology of "high slew rate" and stopped using "square wave", but until that happens, I will still use the term "square wave" throughout this book, because that is what people are most familiar hearing.
Measuring Slew Rate Properly
There is an especially important reason high-slew-rate pulses MUST be measured with a high-speed magnetic flux detector, such as a Hall effect probe/sensor. This is because effective slew-rate PEMF pulses rise too fast for most gauss meters to measure accurately. When slew rate is measured accurately, it yields a reasonable estimate of the induced energy field within the tissues. Also, do not rely on any online "calculators" for slew rate, as it is almost impossible to calculate accurately. We found an online DIY influencer's calculator for slew rate and Webers to be off by nearly 8000% for two mats we accurately tested with a hall probe. Slew rate must be measured in the field, not calculated!
The problem in the PEMF industry is not only that slew rate values are inaccurately listed, but usually they are NOT LISTED AT ALL, along with other important PEMF parameters, which this buyers' guide is outlining. Sadly, because PEMF companies are unregulated, they can say whatever they want; therefore, it is essential to be skeptical unless they can provide solid testing reports. We hope that through education, we can change the industry and establish more accurate testing metrics to compare PEMF devices, especially by their slew rate.
There is an especially important reason high-slew-rate pulses MUST be measured with a high-speed magnetic flux detector, such as a Hall effect probe/sensor. This is because effective slew-rate PEMF pulses rise too fast for most gauss meters to measure accurately. When slew rate is measured accurately, it yields a reasonable estimate of the induced energy field within the tissues. Also, do not rely on any online "calculators" for slew rate, as it is almost impossible to calculate accurately. We found an online DIY influencer's calculator for slew rate and Webers to be off by nearly 8000% for two mats we accurately tested with a hall probe. Slew rate must be measured in the field, not calculated!
The problem in the PEMF industry is not only that slew rate values are inaccurately listed, but usually they are NOT LISTED AT ALL, along with other important PEMF parameters, which this buyers' guide is outlining. Sadly, because PEMF companies are unregulated, they can say whatever they want; therefore, it is essential to be skeptical unless they can provide solid testing reports. We hope that through education, we can change the industry and establish more accurate testing metrics to compare PEMF devices, especially by their slew rate.
Quantifying the Best Slew Rates Based on 19 Successful Slew Rate Studies [10-120 T/s]
Now that we know a square wave PEMF signal with a high-slew-rate is the most effective signal shape to use, is there a limit to its efficacy in terms of energy, healing, and regeneration? Should we just keep increasing the slew rate as high as possible? The answer is definitely NO, as you might suspect. Studies clearly show that the slew rate and corresponding induced current must be "just right" or the healing benefits start to decline [27-34].
We want a high-slew-rate signal, but not one that is too high. This leads us to a biphasic dose recommendation for PEMF or a Goldilocks zone of just the right slew rate! Based on a thorough investigation, we identified 19 successful slew-rate PEMF studies to guide us in determining the best slew rates to use. The successful slew rates from these clinical studies (from low to high - all in T/s or tesla/second) are 5.3, 5.3, 7.9, 9.5, 10, 15, 15.3, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 22.7, 30, 30, 30, 30, 90T/s, and 120 T/s. The average slew rate across these studies was 26.7 T/s, which can serve as a guiding light and a ballpark figure for the ideal slew rate to use. It is noteworthy to add that these 19 studies encompassed a wide range of tissue healing and regeneration, from nerves to muscles to bones to joints and cartilage to tendons. Also, you can see that a high-slew-rate worked well for conditions like breast cancer, major depression, prosthetic recovery, and overall inflammation (inflammation is a root cause of most disease). All these slew rate studies are summarized in the <chart shown here> [5-23].
There are a few notable slew rate studies that can further fine-tune this target range. First, the rabbit bone study by Robert Dennis [5] demonstrated conclusively that 10 T/s was more effective than 5 T/s for healing rabbit bones. Furthermore, there were four PhysioStim HSR (HSR = high-slew-rate) studies [6,8-10] that showed that PhysioStim's newer HSR unit with a slew rate of 30 T/s outperformed their original model (which had a slew rate of 10 T/s) in ALL FOUR STUDIES (PhysioStim is an FDA-approved PEMF device for bone stimulation and healing non-union fractures). One of these PhysioStim studies also examined 300 T/s and 100 T/s and found inhibitory effects at 300 T/s, with 100 T/s not being statistically significantly better than 30 T/s [6]. One final study worth noting is an inflammation study conducted by Robert Dennis, which showed that 120 T/s and 160 T/s were the most effective for inflammation. However, since 160 T/s was no better than 120 T/s, there is no need to exceed 120 T/s [7]. Even further fine-tuning of this "Goldilocks Zone" of slew rate comes from biophysics, where a slew rate of at least 4 T/s is needed to compete with thermal noise [35]. This confirms many unsuccessful studies done with slew rates <5 T/s that we have seen. It is worth noting that most low-intensity full-body mats have slew rates around 1 T/s or less[1]!
On the other end of the spectrum, the upper limits come from both research studies mentioned above AND international safety standards. In all the slew rate research we have reviewed, there is no good clinical evidence to support using slew rates above 120 T/s for inflammation, healing, and regeneration. Quite the opposite - as seen in the PhysioStim study, which showed inhibitory effects with 300 T/s, and also demonstrated that 30 T/s outperformed even 100 T/s [98]. However, perhaps even more significant in establishing an upper bound is the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) safety standards, which limit the upper bound to a safe slew rate of 200 T/s [36]. The most generous range for effective and safe high-slew-rate PEMF is 5-200 T/s; however, the evidence mentioned further narrows that range to 10-120 T/s[2]. If you had to pick a number, I would go with a slew rate close to 30 T/s, as it is not only the approximate average of these 19 studies, but also Physiostim showed with not one, but four studies, that 30 T/s outperformed 10 T/s! While these recommendations are by no means definitive, they are based on solid research from 19 clinical studies that cover a wide range of tissues and conditions [5-23].
[1] It is important to note that it is fairly easy to get a higher slew in a smaller local applicator because of the lower resistance and inductance of smaller coils ALONG with the magnetic field being concentrated into a smaller area. Getting a high-slew-rate in a large full body mat is very difficult and to date I have only found one low or medium intensity PEMF full body mat with a slew rate over 20 T/s. Even most of the medium intensity full body mats only get 3-10 T/s. Call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124 and I can share my current findings on which PEMF full body mats have a high-slew-rate as things could change after publication of this book.
[2] Converting to gauss, this range of 10-120 tesla/second (T/s) would be 100,000 -1,200,000 gauss/second (G/s), as sometimes slew rate is reported in gauss/second.
Now that we know a square wave PEMF signal with a high-slew-rate is the most effective signal shape to use, is there a limit to its efficacy in terms of energy, healing, and regeneration? Should we just keep increasing the slew rate as high as possible? The answer is definitely NO, as you might suspect. Studies clearly show that the slew rate and corresponding induced current must be "just right" or the healing benefits start to decline [27-34].
We want a high-slew-rate signal, but not one that is too high. This leads us to a biphasic dose recommendation for PEMF or a Goldilocks zone of just the right slew rate! Based on a thorough investigation, we identified 19 successful slew-rate PEMF studies to guide us in determining the best slew rates to use. The successful slew rates from these clinical studies (from low to high - all in T/s or tesla/second) are 5.3, 5.3, 7.9, 9.5, 10, 15, 15.3, 17, 17, 17, 17, 18, 22.7, 30, 30, 30, 30, 90T/s, and 120 T/s. The average slew rate across these studies was 26.7 T/s, which can serve as a guiding light and a ballpark figure for the ideal slew rate to use. It is noteworthy to add that these 19 studies encompassed a wide range of tissue healing and regeneration, from nerves to muscles to bones to joints and cartilage to tendons. Also, you can see that a high-slew-rate worked well for conditions like breast cancer, major depression, prosthetic recovery, and overall inflammation (inflammation is a root cause of most disease). All these slew rate studies are summarized in the <chart shown here> [5-23].
There are a few notable slew rate studies that can further fine-tune this target range. First, the rabbit bone study by Robert Dennis [5] demonstrated conclusively that 10 T/s was more effective than 5 T/s for healing rabbit bones. Furthermore, there were four PhysioStim HSR (HSR = high-slew-rate) studies [6,8-10] that showed that PhysioStim's newer HSR unit with a slew rate of 30 T/s outperformed their original model (which had a slew rate of 10 T/s) in ALL FOUR STUDIES (PhysioStim is an FDA-approved PEMF device for bone stimulation and healing non-union fractures). One of these PhysioStim studies also examined 300 T/s and 100 T/s and found inhibitory effects at 300 T/s, with 100 T/s not being statistically significantly better than 30 T/s [6]. One final study worth noting is an inflammation study conducted by Robert Dennis, which showed that 120 T/s and 160 T/s were the most effective for inflammation. However, since 160 T/s was no better than 120 T/s, there is no need to exceed 120 T/s [7]. Even further fine-tuning of this "Goldilocks Zone" of slew rate comes from biophysics, where a slew rate of at least 4 T/s is needed to compete with thermal noise [35]. This confirms many unsuccessful studies done with slew rates <5 T/s that we have seen. It is worth noting that most low-intensity full-body mats have slew rates around 1 T/s or less[1]!
On the other end of the spectrum, the upper limits come from both research studies mentioned above AND international safety standards. In all the slew rate research we have reviewed, there is no good clinical evidence to support using slew rates above 120 T/s for inflammation, healing, and regeneration. Quite the opposite - as seen in the PhysioStim study, which showed inhibitory effects with 300 T/s, and also demonstrated that 30 T/s outperformed even 100 T/s [98]. However, perhaps even more significant in establishing an upper bound is the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) safety standards, which limit the upper bound to a safe slew rate of 200 T/s [36]. The most generous range for effective and safe high-slew-rate PEMF is 5-200 T/s; however, the evidence mentioned further narrows that range to 10-120 T/s[2]. If you had to pick a number, I would go with a slew rate close to 30 T/s, as it is not only the approximate average of these 19 studies, but also Physiostim showed with not one, but four studies, that 30 T/s outperformed 10 T/s! While these recommendations are by no means definitive, they are based on solid research from 19 clinical studies that cover a wide range of tissues and conditions [5-23].
[1] It is important to note that it is fairly easy to get a higher slew in a smaller local applicator because of the lower resistance and inductance of smaller coils ALONG with the magnetic field being concentrated into a smaller area. Getting a high-slew-rate in a large full body mat is very difficult and to date I have only found one low or medium intensity PEMF full body mat with a slew rate over 20 T/s. Even most of the medium intensity full body mats only get 3-10 T/s. Call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124 and I can share my current findings on which PEMF full body mats have a high-slew-rate as things could change after publication of this book.
[2] Converting to gauss, this range of 10-120 tesla/second (T/s) would be 100,000 -1,200,000 gauss/second (G/s), as sometimes slew rate is reported in gauss/second.
|
|
Pulse Duration (Rise Time)
There is also a physiological importance to the duration of the pulse during which the slew rate is sustained, within the research-proven slew rate ranges we examined in Point #1 (10-120 T/s). The pulse width (also called pulse duration, rise time, or ramp time) is the duration of the electrical current pulse sent by the PEMF control unit to the coils, i.e., the time the PEMF is "on". Or, stated another way, it is the time required for a PEMF signal to go from its minimum to its peak intensity. “Peak” is the peak magnetic field measured for each magnetic pulse, measured in gauss (G) or tesla (T). In the examples shown here, the pulse duration is the time needed to go from zero gauss to 10 gauss (the peak intensity). For good PEMF devices, this rise time is measured in microseconds (μs). For less effective devices, the rise time can be in milliseconds. Again, to measure this number accurately, you need a good oscilloscope and a Hall effect probe.
The <image below> right, shows a good real-world example of measuring slew rate, which, as you recall, is dB/dt, which is the change in the magnetic field divided by the change in time. So, in the <image on the left>, the magnetic field goes from 0 to 10 gauss, or 1 mT (converting to tesla dB = 0.001 tesla). The change in time is 100 μs (converted to seconds, is dt =.0001 seconds). So, dB/dt = .001 tesla/.0001 seconds = 10 T/s. Because 1 tesla = 10,000 gauss, the slew rate can also be expressed as 100,000 gauss/second (G/s).
There is also a physiological importance to the duration of the pulse during which the slew rate is sustained, within the research-proven slew rate ranges we examined in Point #1 (10-120 T/s). The pulse width (also called pulse duration, rise time, or ramp time) is the duration of the electrical current pulse sent by the PEMF control unit to the coils, i.e., the time the PEMF is "on". Or, stated another way, it is the time required for a PEMF signal to go from its minimum to its peak intensity. “Peak” is the peak magnetic field measured for each magnetic pulse, measured in gauss (G) or tesla (T). In the examples shown here, the pulse duration is the time needed to go from zero gauss to 10 gauss (the peak intensity). For good PEMF devices, this rise time is measured in microseconds (μs). For less effective devices, the rise time can be in milliseconds. Again, to measure this number accurately, you need a good oscilloscope and a Hall effect probe.
The <image below> right, shows a good real-world example of measuring slew rate, which, as you recall, is dB/dt, which is the change in the magnetic field divided by the change in time. So, in the <image on the left>, the magnetic field goes from 0 to 10 gauss, or 1 mT (converting to tesla dB = 0.001 tesla). The change in time is 100 μs (converted to seconds, is dt =.0001 seconds). So, dB/dt = .001 tesla/.0001 seconds = 10 T/s. Because 1 tesla = 10,000 gauss, the slew rate can also be expressed as 100,000 gauss/second (G/s).
For a given intensity, narrower pulses or shorter pulse durations will have a higher slew rate and usually more biological effect. In this example, you have two PEMF pulses with the SAME INTENSITY, but the example on the left has a rise time that is twice as fast as the example on the right; hence, the slew rate will be DOUBLE!! This means double the energy transferred to your body. This example drives home the point that intensity is of secondary importance in PEMF. The key is having a fast-changing magnetic field along with an adequate intensity, as we'll see. So, you will get optimal performance with very narrow pulses, but not TOO NARROW. Based on good research by Robert Dennis and studies on orthopedic tissue development, the pulse of a good high-slew-rate PEMF device needs to be sustained for a minimum of 80 μs (μs = microseconds) [37-42]. It is simple physics why you would not want, for example, shorter nanosecond pulses with PEMF because that is not enough "on" time for the slew rate to induce any appreciable current.
Typically, the issue with PEMF devices is that the pulse duration is excessively long, as seen in simple and ineffective SINE WAVE PEMF signals. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of PEMF devices on the market - especially the cheaper ones - use a simplistic sine wave. There are three reasons you do not want a PEMF device with too long a rise time. First, slow rise times (or long pulse durations) are less effective because any PEMF pulse longer than 1 ms (ms = millisecond) is usually too slow a rise time to achieve a therapeutic slew rate. Secondly, longer pulse durations (>1 millisecond) are inefficient and wasteful. This is much less efficient and less effective, as research has shown that longer rise times do not perform as well (and there is energy waste). Thirdly, and finally, long pulse durations, coupled with high intensity, led to less safe slew rates than shorter pulse durations. This is why the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) considers slew rates with short pulse durations to be safer than those with longer pulse durations [36].
A significant issue with many cheaper PEMF devices (and some expensive ones) is that they have both a slow rise time and a poor slew rate. Sadly, slow rise times and ineffective slew rates abound in the PEMF industry, especially with devices that use simple sine-wave signals. For example, ALL the cheap Chinese gemstone mats use 60 Hz sine waves from the power company (electrosmog) with a pitiful 8.3 millisecond rise time (see below). This extremely slow rise time is why ALL these junk Chinese crystal mats have slew rates around .5 - 1 T/s (see Chapter 10 for much more information on why these Chinese gemstone PEMF mats are the biggest scam in the PEMF industry)!!
Typically, the issue with PEMF devices is that the pulse duration is excessively long, as seen in simple and ineffective SINE WAVE PEMF signals. Unfortunately, a significant percentage of PEMF devices on the market - especially the cheaper ones - use a simplistic sine wave. There are three reasons you do not want a PEMF device with too long a rise time. First, slow rise times (or long pulse durations) are less effective because any PEMF pulse longer than 1 ms (ms = millisecond) is usually too slow a rise time to achieve a therapeutic slew rate. Secondly, longer pulse durations (>1 millisecond) are inefficient and wasteful. This is much less efficient and less effective, as research has shown that longer rise times do not perform as well (and there is energy waste). Thirdly, and finally, long pulse durations, coupled with high intensity, led to less safe slew rates than shorter pulse durations. This is why the IEC (International Electrotechnical Commission) considers slew rates with short pulse durations to be safer than those with longer pulse durations [36].
A significant issue with many cheaper PEMF devices (and some expensive ones) is that they have both a slow rise time and a poor slew rate. Sadly, slow rise times and ineffective slew rates abound in the PEMF industry, especially with devices that use simple sine-wave signals. For example, ALL the cheap Chinese gemstone mats use 60 Hz sine waves from the power company (electrosmog) with a pitiful 8.3 millisecond rise time (see below). This extremely slow rise time is why ALL these junk Chinese crystal mats have slew rates around .5 - 1 T/s (see Chapter 10 for much more information on why these Chinese gemstone PEMF mats are the biggest scam in the PEMF industry)!!
Point #3: Look for a High-Slew-Rate PEMF with a Balanced Bipolar (or Biphasic) Pulse train
Once we have a good PEMF signal with the right, clinically backed slew rate, it is also important to ensure that the induced currents and energy are balanced and not overly stimulating. This is accomplished using a bipolar or biphasic square wave or pulse. The goal of doing this is to prevent cellular fatigue, accommodation/habituation, and overall to maximize the biological effect.
The <two images below> illustrate two different examples of how a square wave pulse train can be engineered in a PEMF device with what is called bipolarity (also referred to as biphasic pulses). Bipolar or biphasic square waves are ones that reverse directions, such that the square wave will be above and below the x-axis in a balanced way. This bipolarity can also be a series of (+) unipolar square wave pulses above the x-axis and then an equal number of (-) unipolar square wave pulses below (like middle image), There are more complex ways to create a balanced bipolar signal but the key is the total number of (+) pulses above the x-axis is equal or roughly equal to the total number of (-) pulses below the x-axis such that when you integrate the total energy or induced current it comes to NET zero.
A unipolar (or monophasic) square wave (below right) will always have the signal or current moving in the same direction, which results in square waves that are always pointing "North" or "South". On an oscilloscope, this will be seen as square wave pulses always above or always below the x-axis <see image top>. When you integrate the total area, a unipolar square wave keeps increasing the built-up charge and current, which can be overstimulating and cause cellular fatigue and reduced efficacy.
Once we have a good PEMF signal with the right, clinically backed slew rate, it is also important to ensure that the induced currents and energy are balanced and not overly stimulating. This is accomplished using a bipolar or biphasic square wave or pulse. The goal of doing this is to prevent cellular fatigue, accommodation/habituation, and overall to maximize the biological effect.
The <two images below> illustrate two different examples of how a square wave pulse train can be engineered in a PEMF device with what is called bipolarity (also referred to as biphasic pulses). Bipolar or biphasic square waves are ones that reverse directions, such that the square wave will be above and below the x-axis in a balanced way. This bipolarity can also be a series of (+) unipolar square wave pulses above the x-axis and then an equal number of (-) unipolar square wave pulses below (like middle image), There are more complex ways to create a balanced bipolar signal but the key is the total number of (+) pulses above the x-axis is equal or roughly equal to the total number of (-) pulses below the x-axis such that when you integrate the total energy or induced current it comes to NET zero.
A unipolar (or monophasic) square wave (below right) will always have the signal or current moving in the same direction, which results in square waves that are always pointing "North" or "South". On an oscilloscope, this will be seen as square wave pulses always above or always below the x-axis <see image top>. When you integrate the total area, a unipolar square wave keeps increasing the built-up charge and current, which can be overstimulating and cause cellular fatigue and reduced efficacy.
|
|
|
Also, we want a bipolar or biphasic signal (i.e., a square wave) because a net ion flux can lead to an increasing buildup of charge and be damaging to tissues and implants. The result is that balanced bipolar pulses are not only more effective but also less harmful. One study showed that bipolar pulses of rapid balanced polarity reversal allow stimulation without net charge flux in the tissue, which is beneficial for preventing galvanic degradation of implanted metals or electrodes, and may also prevent charge-related collateral tissue damage from inductively coupled tissue stimulation systems, such as PEMF [43]. This degradation in implants that can result from unipolar or monophasic pulses can be easily translated to your tissues, too, so there is proof in engineering that bipolar pulses are safer and more effective!
The goal is that whatever the total induced current in a pulse is, when you reverse polarity and integrate the total current, you get zero, such that there is zero NET movement. One of the goals of PEMF is to move charged ions along the surfaces of organs, cells, and organelles to simulate motion or exercise in healthy tissue (recall that PEMF is an exercise mimetic). To avoid any problems, it is best to move the ions, then move them back. Again, this is like exercise: you squeeze the muscles and tissues, and fluid moves one way, then back the other. Using bipolar pulses creates a very balanced approach to PEMF therapy, and sadly, many PEMF companies are NOT doing this right, especially in many high-intensity units, which only compound the problem!
Having a bipolar or biphasic PEMF signal is essential because the body will get used to either a constant north or a constant south pole polarity. This is one of the main drawbacks of not only unipolar signals, but also why you DON’T want a static magnetic mattress pad to sleep on. Having the same polarity over time leads to cellular fatigue and diminishing returns, if any. I stopped using static magnetic mattresses over 20 years ago because of this, so it is my direct experience too!
Now that we know the ideal range of slew rates to use, which is the most important parameter in PEMF, let's now look at the second most important aspect of PEMF, which is the coils.
The goal is that whatever the total induced current in a pulse is, when you reverse polarity and integrate the total current, you get zero, such that there is zero NET movement. One of the goals of PEMF is to move charged ions along the surfaces of organs, cells, and organelles to simulate motion or exercise in healthy tissue (recall that PEMF is an exercise mimetic). To avoid any problems, it is best to move the ions, then move them back. Again, this is like exercise: you squeeze the muscles and tissues, and fluid moves one way, then back the other. Using bipolar pulses creates a very balanced approach to PEMF therapy, and sadly, many PEMF companies are NOT doing this right, especially in many high-intensity units, which only compound the problem!
Having a bipolar or biphasic PEMF signal is essential because the body will get used to either a constant north or a constant south pole polarity. This is one of the main drawbacks of not only unipolar signals, but also why you DON’T want a static magnetic mattress pad to sleep on. Having the same polarity over time leads to cellular fatigue and diminishing returns, if any. I stopped using static magnetic mattresses over 20 years ago because of this, so it is my direct experience too!
Now that we know the ideal range of slew rates to use, which is the most important parameter in PEMF, let's now look at the second most important aspect of PEMF, which is the coils.
Chapter 4:
The Importance of Good PEMF Coils
The future of medicine is energy medicine and PEMF therapy is leading the way.
― Dr. Harold Saxton Burr
Slew rate is the most important parameter of a PEMF signal, but properly engineered coils of a PEMF system will dictate how well, and how much area of your body a high-slew-rate PEMF signal will cover, AND how deeply the PEMF signal will penetrate. In this section, we will explore three critically important buyers' guide tips on what to look for in good PEMF coils. As with slew rate, the importance of the coils is hardly discussed enough in the PEMF industry, even though it is critically important for effective PEMF therapy.
The PEMF control unit is similar to a stereo and amplifier; the signal from a PEMF device is comparable to the music being played, and the coils of a PEMF system function like speakers. We need a quality PEMF control unit that delivers high fidelity PEMF "music", AND we need that music to be broadcast by quality "speakers" or coils of the right composition, shape, size, and distribution. That is, the coils are like the speakers or transmitting antennas of a PEMF device.
The Importance of Good PEMF Coils
The future of medicine is energy medicine and PEMF therapy is leading the way.
― Dr. Harold Saxton Burr
Slew rate is the most important parameter of a PEMF signal, but properly engineered coils of a PEMF system will dictate how well, and how much area of your body a high-slew-rate PEMF signal will cover, AND how deeply the PEMF signal will penetrate. In this section, we will explore three critically important buyers' guide tips on what to look for in good PEMF coils. As with slew rate, the importance of the coils is hardly discussed enough in the PEMF industry, even though it is critically important for effective PEMF therapy.
The PEMF control unit is similar to a stereo and amplifier; the signal from a PEMF device is comparable to the music being played, and the coils of a PEMF system function like speakers. We need a quality PEMF control unit that delivers high fidelity PEMF "music", AND we need that music to be broadcast by quality "speakers" or coils of the right composition, shape, size, and distribution. That is, the coils are like the speakers or transmitting antennas of a PEMF device.
The Importance of Getting a FULL Body Mat - Don't Settle for a Small, Cheap Localized Applicator Only.
The part can never be well unless the whole is well.
– Plato
Before we discuss the best types of coils for delivering high-slew-rate PEMF, we need to emphasize the importance of using a full-body mat PEMF device (and not settling for small, portable devices). Why? Because the human body is holistic and dynamically interconnected. Five main fractal branching networks tie the entire physical body from head to toe and from skin to bone marrow into an integrated whole. These are the circulatory, lymphatic, nervous, connective tissue matrix, and meridian (primo vascular) systems, which cover your whole body. To fully activate these life-nourishing fractal trees, you absolutely need a full-body mat with wide coverage (and deep penetration). Additionally, you want to energize and recharge all the 37 trillion cells that make up your entire body.
Even for local injuries, you still want a full-body mat. For example, say you severely injure or break your ankle. You may think a small local PEMF applicator is enough. However, consider that to heal and repair the injury, your body must deliver blood, nutrients, oxygen, immunity, nerve impulses/neuropeptides, hormones, growth factors etc. from across the body (i.e. heart, brain, lungs, glands, digestive system) down to the ankle and then remove all the waste products to get rid of through the organs of elimination. To fully activate the healing of your ankle requires a FULL BODY MAT! I hope that makes sense. Now, once you have completed your full-body mat session and activated all these bodily systems, you can then use a local applicator to further focus the PEMF energy on, for example, the ankle or the area of disease or injury. This is the best 1-2 punch in using PEMF optimally to heal your body from just about anything!! So, you definitely want local applicators, but do not skip your daily full-body PEMF mat session[1]! Let us now explore three critical PEMF coil buyers' guide tips for PEMF devices. The first two relate to full-body mat PEMF coils, and the third to local applicator coils or loops.
[1] Important Note on Full Body PEMF: Aim for at least 30 minutes of continuous use on a high-slew-rate full-body mat. Promising research shows that it takes 30 minutes for the peak anti-inflammatory benefits to "kick in" [1]. In technical terms, the study found that PEMF created peak activity of A2A receptors at 30 minutes. When stimulated, the A2A receptors act like a switch that turns off inflammation!
The part can never be well unless the whole is well.
– Plato
Before we discuss the best types of coils for delivering high-slew-rate PEMF, we need to emphasize the importance of using a full-body mat PEMF device (and not settling for small, portable devices). Why? Because the human body is holistic and dynamically interconnected. Five main fractal branching networks tie the entire physical body from head to toe and from skin to bone marrow into an integrated whole. These are the circulatory, lymphatic, nervous, connective tissue matrix, and meridian (primo vascular) systems, which cover your whole body. To fully activate these life-nourishing fractal trees, you absolutely need a full-body mat with wide coverage (and deep penetration). Additionally, you want to energize and recharge all the 37 trillion cells that make up your entire body.
Even for local injuries, you still want a full-body mat. For example, say you severely injure or break your ankle. You may think a small local PEMF applicator is enough. However, consider that to heal and repair the injury, your body must deliver blood, nutrients, oxygen, immunity, nerve impulses/neuropeptides, hormones, growth factors etc. from across the body (i.e. heart, brain, lungs, glands, digestive system) down to the ankle and then remove all the waste products to get rid of through the organs of elimination. To fully activate the healing of your ankle requires a FULL BODY MAT! I hope that makes sense. Now, once you have completed your full-body mat session and activated all these bodily systems, you can then use a local applicator to further focus the PEMF energy on, for example, the ankle or the area of disease or injury. This is the best 1-2 punch in using PEMF optimally to heal your body from just about anything!! So, you definitely want local applicators, but do not skip your daily full-body PEMF mat session[1]! Let us now explore three critical PEMF coil buyers' guide tips for PEMF devices. The first two relate to full-body mat PEMF coils, and the third to local applicator coils or loops.
[1] Important Note on Full Body PEMF: Aim for at least 30 minutes of continuous use on a high-slew-rate full-body mat. Promising research shows that it takes 30 minutes for the peak anti-inflammatory benefits to "kick in" [1]. In technical terms, the study found that PEMF created peak activity of A2A receptors at 30 minutes. When stimulated, the A2A receptors act like a switch that turns off inflammation!
Make Sure to Get a PEMF device with Coils on a Full-Body Mat that Covers the Whole Body!
First, we want to ensure there is sufficient coil area to cover the entire body and that the energy is evenly distributed across the coils. The challenge with many larger coils or loops is that you can create a hot spot right on top of the current-carrying coil, resulting in less energy in the middle of the coil if it is too large. Additionally, large coils add more inductance and resistance, making it more challenging to achieve a high-slew-rate. However, there is a solution that uses a special type of copper coil with a capacitive layer between each layer to create a large, wide coil. This not only spreads the energy more evenly but also helps lower the inductance and resistance. And even better if these large coils are in parallel circuits instead of series circuits (more on engineering in Chapter 9).
Sadly, most companies use coils that are too small and/or spaced too far apart. This leads to poor penetration with small coils and hot and cold spots when the coils are spaced too far apart. Some companies claim to have numerous coils, but in reality, they often feature small coils with excessive dead space and/or insufficient penetration depth. Additionally, because the coils are usually in series rather than parallel circuits and often have many windings, this increases inductance and resistance, making it very difficult to achieve a therapeutic slew rate.
Additionally, high-intensity PEMF devices often experience uneven distribution due to their use of large, small, and butterfly-shaped loops. The problem is that you get a tremendous "hot spot" of an intensity already too high, where the coil is in direct contact with the skin. To date, I have found only one company that manufactures full-mat coils correctly, yielding a high-slew rate across the entire mat with deep penetration. Some companies do a reasonably good job, but it is rare to find a PEMF full-body mat with evenly distributed slew rates in the research-proven range of 10-120 T/s[1].
[1] High Intensity PEMF full body mats can overcome the high inductance with more voltage and current, resulting in a stronger intensity. The drawbacks are these signals have a slower rise time, loads of electrosmog, and slew rates that are way TOO high! Remember more is not better!
First, we want to ensure there is sufficient coil area to cover the entire body and that the energy is evenly distributed across the coils. The challenge with many larger coils or loops is that you can create a hot spot right on top of the current-carrying coil, resulting in less energy in the middle of the coil if it is too large. Additionally, large coils add more inductance and resistance, making it more challenging to achieve a high-slew-rate. However, there is a solution that uses a special type of copper coil with a capacitive layer between each layer to create a large, wide coil. This not only spreads the energy more evenly but also helps lower the inductance and resistance. And even better if these large coils are in parallel circuits instead of series circuits (more on engineering in Chapter 9).
Sadly, most companies use coils that are too small and/or spaced too far apart. This leads to poor penetration with small coils and hot and cold spots when the coils are spaced too far apart. Some companies claim to have numerous coils, but in reality, they often feature small coils with excessive dead space and/or insufficient penetration depth. Additionally, because the coils are usually in series rather than parallel circuits and often have many windings, this increases inductance and resistance, making it very difficult to achieve a therapeutic slew rate.
Additionally, high-intensity PEMF devices often experience uneven distribution due to their use of large, small, and butterfly-shaped loops. The problem is that you get a tremendous "hot spot" of an intensity already too high, where the coil is in direct contact with the skin. To date, I have found only one company that manufactures full-mat coils correctly, yielding a high-slew rate across the entire mat with deep penetration. Some companies do a reasonably good job, but it is rare to find a PEMF full-body mat with evenly distributed slew rates in the research-proven range of 10-120 T/s[1].
[1] High Intensity PEMF full body mats can overcome the high inductance with more voltage and current, resulting in a stronger intensity. The drawbacks are these signals have a slower rise time, loads of electrosmog, and slew rates that are way TOO high! Remember more is not better!
Make Sure to Get a PEMF Device with Large Enough Coils and Sufficient Slew Rates to Have a Deep Enough Penetration into the Body.
For PEMF, the penetration depth depends on the SIZE of the PEMF coil! Because most full-body mat PEMF devices require you to lie directly on the mat, the starting intensity at the mat's surface, in the middle of the coils, is effectively the manufacturer-listed intensity. Assuming a PEMF manufacturer lists their intensity accurately (because many companies do not), the penetration depth is the distance into the body at which this listed intensity will be at 37% (1/e)[1]. For example, if a PEMF device has a 100 μT intensity at the surface of the mat or applicator, the penetration depth is the distance above the mat at which the intensity drops to 37 μT. Because the human body is transparent to magnetic fields, this is also the penetration depth into the body!
[1] Penetration depth is a measure of how deep light or any electromagnetic radiation can penetrate into a material. It is defined as the depth at which the intensity of the radiation inside the material falls to 1/e (about 37%) of its original value at. The number e is a mathematical constant approximately equal to 2.718 that is the base of the natural logarithm and exponential functions. 1/(2.718) ≈ 37%.
For PEMF, the penetration depth depends on the SIZE of the PEMF coil! Because most full-body mat PEMF devices require you to lie directly on the mat, the starting intensity at the mat's surface, in the middle of the coils, is effectively the manufacturer-listed intensity. Assuming a PEMF manufacturer lists their intensity accurately (because many companies do not), the penetration depth is the distance into the body at which this listed intensity will be at 37% (1/e)[1]. For example, if a PEMF device has a 100 μT intensity at the surface of the mat or applicator, the penetration depth is the distance above the mat at which the intensity drops to 37 μT. Because the human body is transparent to magnetic fields, this is also the penetration depth into the body!
[1] Penetration depth is a measure of how deep light or any electromagnetic radiation can penetrate into a material. It is defined as the depth at which the intensity of the radiation inside the material falls to 1/e (about 37%) of its original value at. The number e is a mathematical constant approximately equal to 2.718 that is the base of the natural logarithm and exponential functions. 1/(2.718) ≈ 37%.
For PEMF, the penetration depth depends on the SIZE of the PEMF coil! This comes from the Biot-Savart law, where you can calculate how a magnetic field drops off from a PEMF or any current loop. When you do the calculations, you find that the penetration depth is almost exactly equal to the coil's radius (.97×Radius ≈ Radius). So, you can see that larger coils have greater penetration due to their larger radius (imagine a hemisphere of energy over a PEMF coil, <as shown in the image below>. A large coil will have a larger dome or hemisphere of energy above it, resulting in deeper penetration. Bigger coils at the same given intensity have a deeper penetration depth than smaller coils.
In contrast, the penetration depth of light and other electromagnetic waves depends on the material through which it is propagating and the wave's frequency. For PEMF, the penetration depth depends ONLY on the SIZE of the PEMF coil, not a person's thickness, weight, body type, etc.! While field measurements of slew rate are what matter, typically for full body coverage and deeper penetration, larger circular coils will generally work the best (if appropriately engineered). Interestingly, the average thickness of the average human body is around 12 inches or about 30 cm (centimeters). So, to get penetration at least halfway through an average human body, you ideally want a coil at least 6 inches or 15 cm in radius (12 inches to 30 cm in diameter). According to the DIN, 95% of women are on average 24-34cm (9.5 - 13.5 inches) thick, and 95% of men are on average 26-38cm (10-15 inches) thick [2]. So, the average of the two is right at 12 inches, or 30 cm!
Shown below are three coils of diameters 12 inches, 8 inches, and 4 inches. If the intensity at the surface of all three coils is the same, the 12-inch diameter coil will have a penetration depth of about 6 inches, the 8-inch diameter coil will have a penetration depth of about 4 inches, and the 4-inch diameter coil will have a penetration depth of about 2 inches (see image below). Note: this formula, .97×(radius) = penetration depth, is accurate only for the centerline of the coil, perpendicular to the coil; the fields are more complicated than hemispheres, but it still gives a nice visual for comparing the penetration depths of different-sized coils.
In contrast, the penetration depth of light and other electromagnetic waves depends on the material through which it is propagating and the wave's frequency. For PEMF, the penetration depth depends ONLY on the SIZE of the PEMF coil, not a person's thickness, weight, body type, etc.! While field measurements of slew rate are what matter, typically for full body coverage and deeper penetration, larger circular coils will generally work the best (if appropriately engineered). Interestingly, the average thickness of the average human body is around 12 inches or about 30 cm (centimeters). So, to get penetration at least halfway through an average human body, you ideally want a coil at least 6 inches or 15 cm in radius (12 inches to 30 cm in diameter). According to the DIN, 95% of women are on average 24-34cm (9.5 - 13.5 inches) thick, and 95% of men are on average 26-38cm (10-15 inches) thick [2]. So, the average of the two is right at 12 inches, or 30 cm!
Shown below are three coils of diameters 12 inches, 8 inches, and 4 inches. If the intensity at the surface of all three coils is the same, the 12-inch diameter coil will have a penetration depth of about 6 inches, the 8-inch diameter coil will have a penetration depth of about 4 inches, and the 4-inch diameter coil will have a penetration depth of about 2 inches (see image below). Note: this formula, .97×(radius) = penetration depth, is accurate only for the centerline of the coil, perpendicular to the coil; the fields are more complicated than hemispheres, but it still gives a nice visual for comparing the penetration depths of different-sized coils.
Putting it All Together: High-Slew-Rate + Large, Properly Engineered Coils That Cover the Whole Body + Deep Penetration
Because the penetration depth is just a ratio of the surface or source intensity, we still need a high-slew-rate signal at the surface. Having large coils with a low slew rate at the surface is of no benefit to us, even if the penetration depth is good. This is especially true since our goal is to achieve a 10-120 T/s slew rate within the body. Therefore, all this discussion about large coils assumes that the slew rate directly above the full-body mat is sufficiently high to achieve a good slew rate throughout the body. For example, one device I recommend has a surface slew rate of 30 T/s. Because the coil is large, even 4 inches above the coil, the slew rate remains fairly uniform at 15 T/s. The slight hot and cold spots evened out 4 inches up. This is by far the best I have seen in any medium-intensity (or low-intensity) PEMF device currently available. The only way to confirm this is to test and measure the slew rate on the surface (to ensure your whole body is covered) and above the mat (to verify that it penetrates deeply). Again, to emphasize, you cannot calculate slew rate accurately unless you have a PhD in applied physics or electrical engineering. It must be measured accurately, or it's likely to be inaccurate. Let's now examine the three most important questions to ask a PEMF manufacturer to ensure you achieve a high-slew-rate across your entire body and to verify that a therapeutic slew rate penetrates deeply.
Three Questions to Ask a PEMF Manufacturer:
1) What is the total area of the coils (or have them show you their coil design)?
This tells you how much area of your body is being treated, as the energy is concentrated on top and in the middle of the coils.
2) What is the Slew Rate at the surface of the mat?
This is the most important parameter in PEMF. It is essential to get a lab-verified slew rate that is measured with a Hall effect probe (do not trust online calculators)
3) What is the Slew Rate 4 Inches up (or some distance up, like 3, 4, 5, or 6 inches)?
This will tell you how deeply the (hopefully) therapeutic slew rate will penetrate. You want ideally >5T/s deep into the body (3-6 inches up).
Let's break all this down because it is so important to understand. Intensity and frequency have little to say about the slew rate, nothing about the area of coverage, and nothing about the penetration depth. You could literally have a tiny coil in the middle of a large full-body mat and list only intensity and frequency, and nobody would know. Now, listing the slew rate of a PEMF is more beneficial because slew rate measures the amount of energy transferred to your body, not intensity. But slew rate alone says nothing about how well that slew rate is distributed across your body and how deeply the slew rate penetrates. Again, you could use small coils with a high-slew-rate, but that covers very little area and doesn't penetrate well. Since biophysics and research indicate that we require a slew rate of at least 5-10 T/s, we would like to know, for example, how deeply into the body we can achieve this slew rate.
Because the penetration depth is just a ratio of the surface or source intensity, we still need a high-slew-rate signal at the surface. Having large coils with a low slew rate at the surface is of no benefit to us, even if the penetration depth is good. This is especially true since our goal is to achieve a 10-120 T/s slew rate within the body. Therefore, all this discussion about large coils assumes that the slew rate directly above the full-body mat is sufficiently high to achieve a good slew rate throughout the body. For example, one device I recommend has a surface slew rate of 30 T/s. Because the coil is large, even 4 inches above the coil, the slew rate remains fairly uniform at 15 T/s. The slight hot and cold spots evened out 4 inches up. This is by far the best I have seen in any medium-intensity (or low-intensity) PEMF device currently available. The only way to confirm this is to test and measure the slew rate on the surface (to ensure your whole body is covered) and above the mat (to verify that it penetrates deeply). Again, to emphasize, you cannot calculate slew rate accurately unless you have a PhD in applied physics or electrical engineering. It must be measured accurately, or it's likely to be inaccurate. Let's now examine the three most important questions to ask a PEMF manufacturer to ensure you achieve a high-slew-rate across your entire body and to verify that a therapeutic slew rate penetrates deeply.
Three Questions to Ask a PEMF Manufacturer:
1) What is the total area of the coils (or have them show you their coil design)?
This tells you how much area of your body is being treated, as the energy is concentrated on top and in the middle of the coils.
2) What is the Slew Rate at the surface of the mat?
This is the most important parameter in PEMF. It is essential to get a lab-verified slew rate that is measured with a Hall effect probe (do not trust online calculators)
3) What is the Slew Rate 4 Inches up (or some distance up, like 3, 4, 5, or 6 inches)?
This will tell you how deeply the (hopefully) therapeutic slew rate will penetrate. You want ideally >5T/s deep into the body (3-6 inches up).
Let's break all this down because it is so important to understand. Intensity and frequency have little to say about the slew rate, nothing about the area of coverage, and nothing about the penetration depth. You could literally have a tiny coil in the middle of a large full-body mat and list only intensity and frequency, and nobody would know. Now, listing the slew rate of a PEMF is more beneficial because slew rate measures the amount of energy transferred to your body, not intensity. But slew rate alone says nothing about how well that slew rate is distributed across your body and how deeply the slew rate penetrates. Again, you could use small coils with a high-slew-rate, but that covers very little area and doesn't penetrate well. Since biophysics and research indicate that we require a slew rate of at least 5-10 T/s, we would like to know, for example, how deeply into the body we can achieve this slew rate.
[Optional Section] 3D Slew Rate Plot - The Ultimate Way to Compare PEMF Devices
If slew rate measurements were conducted meticulously across and above a PEMF mat, you could create a rough 3D plot, <as shown below>. What this graph shows is the slew rate above a full body (or applicator) and how the therapeutic slew rate varies both ACROSS THE MAT and how it drops off ABOVE THE MAT. Essentially, you have the x-y plane, which encompasses the entire area of the full-body mat or applicator. There are two Z-axes: one represents the elevation or distance above the mat, and the other represents the slew rate at each point and each elevation above the mat; thus, it is akin to a 4-component vector (x, y, z, dB/dt). Therefore, each point in the voxelated grid above the full-body mat or applicator would have a slew rate assigned to it. With just one 3D plot, we obtain the area coverage of therapeutic slew rates and identify any hot or cold spots on the mat, based on the quality of coil design and placement. AND we get the slew rate penetration depth above every point on the mat! Listing only intensity and frequency for a PEMF is akin to kindergarten science compared to this 3D slew-rate plot, which is more like graduate school. Sadly, most PEMF companies oversimplify things to the point of being not only misleading but also wrong. And not wrong by a little, wrong by upwards of 8000%-10,000%[1]!
[1] See chapter 6 and Appendix B
If slew rate measurements were conducted meticulously across and above a PEMF mat, you could create a rough 3D plot, <as shown below>. What this graph shows is the slew rate above a full body (or applicator) and how the therapeutic slew rate varies both ACROSS THE MAT and how it drops off ABOVE THE MAT. Essentially, you have the x-y plane, which encompasses the entire area of the full-body mat or applicator. There are two Z-axes: one represents the elevation or distance above the mat, and the other represents the slew rate at each point and each elevation above the mat; thus, it is akin to a 4-component vector (x, y, z, dB/dt). Therefore, each point in the voxelated grid above the full-body mat or applicator would have a slew rate assigned to it. With just one 3D plot, we obtain the area coverage of therapeutic slew rates and identify any hot or cold spots on the mat, based on the quality of coil design and placement. AND we get the slew rate penetration depth above every point on the mat! Listing only intensity and frequency for a PEMF is akin to kindergarten science compared to this 3D slew-rate plot, which is more like graduate school. Sadly, most PEMF companies oversimplify things to the point of being not only misleading but also wrong. And not wrong by a little, wrong by upwards of 8000%-10,000%[1]!
[1] See chapter 6 and Appendix B
If we compared PEMF devices by accurate 3D slew rate plots, we could expose all the scams in the PEMF industry and help people choose effective PEMF devices. For example, devices with low slew rates would be exposed. Also, devices with small coils and poor penetration depth would be exposed. Devices with excessive spacing between the coils (for full-body mats) would also be exposed. What would come to light is the best PEMF devices, backed by clinically proven and scientifically validated slew rates, and properly engineered coils that deliver this energy effectively.
Make Sure to Get a PEMF Device That Includes Local Applicators for Various Spot Treatments on Specific Issues
Along with having a good full-body mat with properly engineered large coils that uniformly cover the mat, it is also essential to have effective local applicators to treat localized issues. Most people who get a PEMF device have some kind of localized pain or localized health issue (for example, low back pain or knee pain). For these localized problems, you want to use a good localized applicator to focus a high-slew-rate PEMF signal on that spot. The best local applicators are large and smaller pads or loops, and a good Helmholtz coil or pad.
While you ALWAYS want to do a full body mat session once or twice a day for 30 minutes, you want to ADD to that good local applicators with a high-slew-rate to treat specific injured areas, inflamed areas, sick or diseased areas, or any particular spot on your body needing localized support. If the localized coils are done right, you receive healing energy across the whole of the injured, painful, sick, or diseased area. Large and smaller pads or coils are very straightforward, and they are convenient to use for longer sessions, which is advantageous if you have an acute injury or localized health issue. Local applicators, when done right, are easy to use while watching TV or a movie, listening to music or a podcast, or reading a book. So, if you have a localized issue, it is easy and convenient to put in extra PEMF time, which speeds up the healing!
Along with having a good full-body mat with properly engineered large coils that uniformly cover the mat, it is also essential to have effective local applicators to treat localized issues. Most people who get a PEMF device have some kind of localized pain or localized health issue (for example, low back pain or knee pain). For these localized problems, you want to use a good localized applicator to focus a high-slew-rate PEMF signal on that spot. The best local applicators are large and smaller pads or loops, and a good Helmholtz coil or pad.
While you ALWAYS want to do a full body mat session once or twice a day for 30 minutes, you want to ADD to that good local applicators with a high-slew-rate to treat specific injured areas, inflamed areas, sick or diseased areas, or any particular spot on your body needing localized support. If the localized coils are done right, you receive healing energy across the whole of the injured, painful, sick, or diseased area. Large and smaller pads or coils are very straightforward, and they are convenient to use for longer sessions, which is advantageous if you have an acute injury or localized health issue. Local applicators, when done right, are easy to use while watching TV or a movie, listening to music or a podcast, or reading a book. So, if you have a localized issue, it is easy and convenient to put in extra PEMF time, which speeds up the healing!
Along with small and large local applicator pads and/or loops, perhaps the most essential type of localized applicator is a Helmholtz coil (or butterfly coil) whereby two coils are placed in the same direction on both sides of small joints, or even like a sandwich with your whole body. Helmholtz coils are unique in that the energy does not decrease within a radius distance apart, assuring penetration of high-slew-rate PEMF through the area of the body that is "sandwiched". Helmholtz coils are ideal for small joints, such as the feet, ankles, knees, wrists, hands, elbows, and shoulders, to achieve the best healing effect, provided you have a high-slew-rate and an effective signal. Also, some companies have larger Helmholtz "squares" with large circular coils matching the full body mat to give a larger area of your body a PEMF sandwich or "energy taco" with full power and full therapeutic slew rate ALL THE WAY THROUGH! If a PEMF device does not contain a Helmholtz or butterfly type of coils or pads, that is a significant disadvantage for properly healing localized areas!
We have now looked at what I feel are the most important parameters for a good PEMF device: Therapeutic slew rate, and properly engineered coils to effectively distribute a therapeutic slew rate across the whole body and deep into the body. But what about frequency and intensity that most PEMF companies talk about? Are these parameters important? The answer is YES they are, but they are of secondary importance. Let's begin with PEMF intensity (and then exposing lies and myths about needing high intensity).
We have now looked at what I feel are the most important parameters for a good PEMF device: Therapeutic slew rate, and properly engineered coils to effectively distribute a therapeutic slew rate across the whole body and deep into the body. But what about frequency and intensity that most PEMF companies talk about? Are these parameters important? The answer is YES they are, but they are of secondary importance. Let's begin with PEMF intensity (and then exposing lies and myths about needing high intensity).
Chapter 5:
The Ideal "Goldilocks" PEMF Intensity
And then she went to the porridge of the Little Wee Bear, and tasted it, and that was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right, and she liked it so well that she ate it all up, every bit!
― From English Fairytale "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" [1]
Now, if slew rate is king when it comes to PEMF, does intensity matter at all (i.e., gauss or tesla)? The answer is yes, but not in the ways high-intensity companies and influencers market to sell high-intensity PEMF products. Like the porridge of the little wee bear in Goldilocks, we want a medium-intensity PEMF mat that is "just right". Why is a medium intensity signal "just right"? Recall that the slew rate is the peak magnetic field intensity divided by the rise time (dB/dt), so intensity does matter, mainly as a secondary consequence of slew rate. As stated in point #2, the required minimum rise time of 80-100 μs limits intensity to a certain minimum—specifically, a moderate, middle-of-the-road level. This medium intensity is ideal for achieving the best therapeutic slew rates, typically in the range of 1-10mT (10-100 gauss), based on the therapeutic range of 10-120 T/s[1].
The Goldilocks Zone for effective PEMF is 10–120 T/s for slew rate and 1–10 mT (10–100 gauss) for intensity. We now focus on the Goldilocks Zone of intensity because most PEMF studies do not report slew rates (sadly, very few); therefore, intensity is often used as a proxy for effectiveness. Most researched and effective signals fall within the moderate intensity range, aligning with ideal slew rates. In this section, we'll examine extensive PEMF research to determine the optimal "just right" intensity for PEMF use. It is essential to let research serve as a guiding light, rather than relying on marketing and sales tactics. We'll see good evidence that medium-intensity PEMF is not only the most researched, but also the most effective PEMF intensity. If the three bears had PEMF mats of different intensities, Goldilocks would surely lie on a medium intensity one! <Goldilocks Image of 3 PEMF mats - Red/Blue/Green>
[1] For example, with an 80 μs rise time, a minimum intensity of 2400 μT (2.4 mT) = 24 gauss is needed to hit 30 T/s, which is most definitely a medium intensity. If the rise time is longer, you need an even higher intensity. You cannot achieve 30 T/s with low-intensity systems unless you use very high-frequency bursts, which result in rise times that are too quick and unnatural at higher radio frequencies.
The Ideal "Goldilocks" PEMF Intensity
And then she went to the porridge of the Little Wee Bear, and tasted it, and that was neither too hot nor too cold, but just right, and she liked it so well that she ate it all up, every bit!
― From English Fairytale "Goldilocks and the Three Bears" [1]
Now, if slew rate is king when it comes to PEMF, does intensity matter at all (i.e., gauss or tesla)? The answer is yes, but not in the ways high-intensity companies and influencers market to sell high-intensity PEMF products. Like the porridge of the little wee bear in Goldilocks, we want a medium-intensity PEMF mat that is "just right". Why is a medium intensity signal "just right"? Recall that the slew rate is the peak magnetic field intensity divided by the rise time (dB/dt), so intensity does matter, mainly as a secondary consequence of slew rate. As stated in point #2, the required minimum rise time of 80-100 μs limits intensity to a certain minimum—specifically, a moderate, middle-of-the-road level. This medium intensity is ideal for achieving the best therapeutic slew rates, typically in the range of 1-10mT (10-100 gauss), based on the therapeutic range of 10-120 T/s[1].
The Goldilocks Zone for effective PEMF is 10–120 T/s for slew rate and 1–10 mT (10–100 gauss) for intensity. We now focus on the Goldilocks Zone of intensity because most PEMF studies do not report slew rates (sadly, very few); therefore, intensity is often used as a proxy for effectiveness. Most researched and effective signals fall within the moderate intensity range, aligning with ideal slew rates. In this section, we'll examine extensive PEMF research to determine the optimal "just right" intensity for PEMF use. It is essential to let research serve as a guiding light, rather than relying on marketing and sales tactics. We'll see good evidence that medium-intensity PEMF is not only the most researched, but also the most effective PEMF intensity. If the three bears had PEMF mats of different intensities, Goldilocks would surely lie on a medium intensity one! <Goldilocks Image of 3 PEMF mats - Red/Blue/Green>
[1] For example, with an 80 μs rise time, a minimum intensity of 2400 μT (2.4 mT) = 24 gauss is needed to hit 30 T/s, which is most definitely a medium intensity. If the rise time is longer, you need an even higher intensity. You cannot achieve 30 T/s with low-intensity systems unless you use very high-frequency bursts, which result in rise times that are too quick and unnatural at higher radio frequencies.
What Does PEMF Research Say About Intensity?
Robust evidence as to the best intensity to use in PEMF comes from a meta-analysis[1] of 3249 PEMF experiments and 92 publications over 20 years (1999-2019) [2]. This study is the most comprehensive analysis of PEMF studies I am aware of. One key takeaway is that a vast majority of successful PEMF studies reporting intensity (around 75%) used intensities between 10 and 100 gauss or 1 and 10 mT (see chart above). As mentioned, this range of 1-10 mT represents a moderate-to-medium intensity level that also appears to be the "sweet spot" for achieving optimal slew rates. Based on this meta-analysis, approximately 20% of the PEMF studies fell within the low-intensity range (<1 mT or 10 gauss). High-intensity had the LEAST amount of research supporting it (only 2-3% of the studies were high-intensity) compared to low- and medium-intensity systems [2].
Not only are there 25 times as many medium-intensity studies as high-intensity studies, but this extensive meta-analysis also reveals that medium-intensity studies show a significantly greater positive cellular response than both high- and low-intensity studies (See chart below) [2]. That is, medium-intensity PEMF signals are the optimal intensities for triggering, at the cellular level, all the primary benefits of PEMF that we examined towards the end of Chapter 2. Examples of cellular responses observed in research include gene and protein expression, healthy cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell viability (cell health), and triggering signal transduction pathways [2].
[1] A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to provide a more comprehensive and reliable estimate of an effect or relationship. A simple way to think of it is a study of studies. In this case, the meta-analysis of over 3000 PEMF studies provides convincing statistical conclusions about various aspects of an effective PEMF signal.
Robust evidence as to the best intensity to use in PEMF comes from a meta-analysis[1] of 3249 PEMF experiments and 92 publications over 20 years (1999-2019) [2]. This study is the most comprehensive analysis of PEMF studies I am aware of. One key takeaway is that a vast majority of successful PEMF studies reporting intensity (around 75%) used intensities between 10 and 100 gauss or 1 and 10 mT (see chart above). As mentioned, this range of 1-10 mT represents a moderate-to-medium intensity level that also appears to be the "sweet spot" for achieving optimal slew rates. Based on this meta-analysis, approximately 20% of the PEMF studies fell within the low-intensity range (<1 mT or 10 gauss). High-intensity had the LEAST amount of research supporting it (only 2-3% of the studies were high-intensity) compared to low- and medium-intensity systems [2].
Not only are there 25 times as many medium-intensity studies as high-intensity studies, but this extensive meta-analysis also reveals that medium-intensity studies show a significantly greater positive cellular response than both high- and low-intensity studies (See chart below) [2]. That is, medium-intensity PEMF signals are the optimal intensities for triggering, at the cellular level, all the primary benefits of PEMF that we examined towards the end of Chapter 2. Examples of cellular responses observed in research include gene and protein expression, healthy cell proliferation, cell differentiation, cell viability (cell health), and triggering signal transduction pathways [2].
[1] A meta-analysis is a statistical technique that combines the results of multiple studies to provide a more comprehensive and reliable estimate of an effect or relationship. A simple way to think of it is a study of studies. In this case, the meta-analysis of over 3000 PEMF studies provides convincing statistical conclusions about various aspects of an effective PEMF signal.
Another Case for Medium Intensity
One very good research paper searched for clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of PEMF treatment. The survey showed that several PEMF devices are available on the market; however, only a few PEMF signals have clinical evidence supporting them: these signals are either square or sawtooth waves, with magnetic field peak intensities spanning 1.2-2 mT. These were ALL high-slew-rate, medium-intensity signals [3,4]!
One very good research paper searched for clinical studies evaluating the effectiveness of PEMF treatment. The survey showed that several PEMF devices are available on the market; however, only a few PEMF signals have clinical evidence supporting them: these signals are either square or sawtooth waves, with magnetic field peak intensities spanning 1.2-2 mT. These were ALL high-slew-rate, medium-intensity signals [3,4]!
My Own Meta-Analysis on Intensity in PEMF
We just saw from a survey of over 3,200 studies that most PEMF studies - by far - used a medium intensity, and the least amount of PEMF studies (only 2-3%) used high intensity. Additionally, medium-intensity PEMF outperformed both low- and high-intensity PEMF in terms of cellular response. However, if you are still skeptical, let me share my extensive labor of love to expose once and for all that most PEMF research better supports medium-intensity PEMF for most conditions, not high-intensity PEMF. Dr. William Pawluk is one of the top PEMF influencers and educators and is easily the biggest advocate and promoter of high-intensity PEMF (as evidenced by his top-selling books and numerous invitations to podcasts, interviews, and conferences). First, to give Dr. Pawluk credit, he has done a great deal of work to raise awareness about the numerous benefits of PEMF therapy. While much of his information on PEMF is very informative and valuable, his recommendations for high-intensity PEMF are misguided, as we'll see. Because Dr. Pawluk is the leading spokesperson for PEMF and has written more on PEMF than anyone else, a question I asked myself one day was, " I wonder how many of Dr. Pawluk's PEMF citations actually support his position on high intensity PEMF?" I decided to take a critical look at all the PEMF research studies he cited across ALL his books, e-books, and contributing chapters [5-18].
I was incredibly thorough, as I spent one month full-time going through and carefully analyzing over 700 of Dr. Pawluk's citations (removing all duplicates). I began with the 508 references in Dr. Pawluk's Book, Power Tools for Health, where most of his citations reside. Following these are citations from his second book, Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy, as well as citations from his eBook and chapters he contributed to technical books on PEMF and energy medicine [5-18]. I was surprised to see that, despite Dr. Pawluk's strong promotion of high-intensity PEMF, only 17% of the PEMF studies he himself references are high-intensity. 77% of Dr. Pawluk's citations are from low- and medium-intensity studies (the remaining 6% are from medium- to high-intensity studies, 10-100 mT). You can verify this for yourself, as I have created a detailed spreadsheet with a large sample size of all his citations [19][1].
Let's treat this as a meta-analysis, given Dr. Pawluk's substantial sample of PEMF research. With the exception of his recommendations for buying high-intensity PEMF devices based on flawed physics, his book, Power Tools for Health, is, for the most part, very good, mainly because he summarizes a large body of high-quality PEMF research. Unfortunately, most of his high-intensity research references are on rTMS (Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation), a highly localized brain stimulation therapy that uses high-intensity pulsed magnetic fields to modulate brain activity, but which requires extensive medical training and should only be performed by a qualified medical professional[2]. It is very focused and specialized for only a handful of conditions, mainly depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD. When you exclude the rTMS studies, only 5% of Dr. Pawluk's PEMF citations are high-intensity. A whopping 88% of Dr. Pawluk's own citations are for low- and medium-intensity studies, including two studies he himself conducted [21,22]. Dr. Pawluk's research study with Robert Dennis on TBI (traumatic brain injury) used a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate 10 mT/10 Hz square wave. [21]. This is the kind of signal I have been recommending throughout this entire buyers' guide! He was also a part of a low-intensity PEMF study for knee osteoarthritis [22].
[1] All of Dr. Pawluk's Citations are at this link https://bit.ly/4mBTXPx where I color-code them by intensity.
[2] rTMS is a very specialized form of magnetic field therapy used for psychiatry and should NOT be compared to PEMF devices for home use. Research literature has separated rTMS and PEMF as two different types of therapy [20]. It is misleading to use rTMS studies to support high intensity PEMF for daily home use! They are NOT the same.
We just saw from a survey of over 3,200 studies that most PEMF studies - by far - used a medium intensity, and the least amount of PEMF studies (only 2-3%) used high intensity. Additionally, medium-intensity PEMF outperformed both low- and high-intensity PEMF in terms of cellular response. However, if you are still skeptical, let me share my extensive labor of love to expose once and for all that most PEMF research better supports medium-intensity PEMF for most conditions, not high-intensity PEMF. Dr. William Pawluk is one of the top PEMF influencers and educators and is easily the biggest advocate and promoter of high-intensity PEMF (as evidenced by his top-selling books and numerous invitations to podcasts, interviews, and conferences). First, to give Dr. Pawluk credit, he has done a great deal of work to raise awareness about the numerous benefits of PEMF therapy. While much of his information on PEMF is very informative and valuable, his recommendations for high-intensity PEMF are misguided, as we'll see. Because Dr. Pawluk is the leading spokesperson for PEMF and has written more on PEMF than anyone else, a question I asked myself one day was, " I wonder how many of Dr. Pawluk's PEMF citations actually support his position on high intensity PEMF?" I decided to take a critical look at all the PEMF research studies he cited across ALL his books, e-books, and contributing chapters [5-18].
I was incredibly thorough, as I spent one month full-time going through and carefully analyzing over 700 of Dr. Pawluk's citations (removing all duplicates). I began with the 508 references in Dr. Pawluk's Book, Power Tools for Health, where most of his citations reside. Following these are citations from his second book, Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy, as well as citations from his eBook and chapters he contributed to technical books on PEMF and energy medicine [5-18]. I was surprised to see that, despite Dr. Pawluk's strong promotion of high-intensity PEMF, only 17% of the PEMF studies he himself references are high-intensity. 77% of Dr. Pawluk's citations are from low- and medium-intensity studies (the remaining 6% are from medium- to high-intensity studies, 10-100 mT). You can verify this for yourself, as I have created a detailed spreadsheet with a large sample size of all his citations [19][1].
Let's treat this as a meta-analysis, given Dr. Pawluk's substantial sample of PEMF research. With the exception of his recommendations for buying high-intensity PEMF devices based on flawed physics, his book, Power Tools for Health, is, for the most part, very good, mainly because he summarizes a large body of high-quality PEMF research. Unfortunately, most of his high-intensity research references are on rTMS (Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation), a highly localized brain stimulation therapy that uses high-intensity pulsed magnetic fields to modulate brain activity, but which requires extensive medical training and should only be performed by a qualified medical professional[2]. It is very focused and specialized for only a handful of conditions, mainly depression, anxiety, obsessive-compulsive disorder, and PTSD. When you exclude the rTMS studies, only 5% of Dr. Pawluk's PEMF citations are high-intensity. A whopping 88% of Dr. Pawluk's own citations are for low- and medium-intensity studies, including two studies he himself conducted [21,22]. Dr. Pawluk's research study with Robert Dennis on TBI (traumatic brain injury) used a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate 10 mT/10 Hz square wave. [21]. This is the kind of signal I have been recommending throughout this entire buyers' guide! He was also a part of a low-intensity PEMF study for knee osteoarthritis [22].
[1] All of Dr. Pawluk's Citations are at this link https://bit.ly/4mBTXPx where I color-code them by intensity.
[2] rTMS is a very specialized form of magnetic field therapy used for psychiatry and should NOT be compared to PEMF devices for home use. Research literature has separated rTMS and PEMF as two different types of therapy [20]. It is misleading to use rTMS studies to support high intensity PEMF for daily home use! They are NOT the same.
|
|
Analysis
When you look carefully at all the high-intensity studies Dr. Pawluk cites - including rTMS - high intensity seems ONLY good for the 17 conditions listed below (in order of occurrence): Analgesia (pain relief) [23-32], Urinary incontinence [33-40], Major Depression/anxiety [41-44], PTSD [45-50], Epilepsy/seizures [51-54], Multiple Sclerosis M.S. [55-57], Addiction recovery [58-61], Parkinsons /tremors [62-65], cancer [66-67], Obesity/food addictions [68-69], Brain Entrainment/Sleep [70-71], Stroke recovery/ TB [72-73], Drug delivery [74-75], microcirculation [76], and bones [77]. So, high-intensity PEMF does have strong research support, but it is only applicable to a narrow range of conditions. Additionally, as we'll see, medium- and low-intensity PEMF studies have overlapping benefits for many of these conditions.
When you look carefully at all the Medium Intensity Studies Dr. Pawluk cites, we find that medium intensity is suitable for over 50+ conditions: Pain Relief /Migraines/back pain/neck/shoulder pain/Pelvic Pain/Complex regional pain/postoperative pain [78-91], Bone healing/fractures/Bone health [92-102], Osteoporosis [103-105], Cancer/tumors [106-116], Antibiotic/Boost Immunity [117-123], Nervous System/Nerve regeneration [124-130], Reduce inflammation [131-139], Wound Healing/Recovery from Surgery/general regeneration [140-147], Depression/anxiety [148-153], Brain Damage/Stroke/TBI (including Dr Pawluk's own study first!) [154-156], Diabetes/diabetic foot ulcer/retinopathy [157-160], Multiple Sclerosis M.S. [161-164], Microcirculation/heart health [165-167], Prosthetic integration/loosening [168-170], Cartilage/joint regeneration [171-172], Anti-aging (autophagy, HSP70, antioxidants) [173-175], Glaucoma/Macular Degeneration/eye health [176-178], Neurodegenerative disease (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS) [179-180], Brain Health [181], Eczema/Psoriasis [182-183], Osteoarthritis/arthritis [184-186], Digestion/Intestinal Health [187], Sperm Motility/Fertility/ATP synthesis [188], Liver Regeneration [189], Tendon regeneration [190-191], Tendinitis (rotator cuff) [192], Ligament healing [193], Collagen synthesis [193,195], Fibromyalgia [196] Spinal Disk regeneration [197], Increase cellular energy [198], Reduce Swelling and Edema [199-200], Decrease fibrosis [201].
The bolded groups in the high-intensity studies represent conditions not observed at medium intensity, but there were only five conditions. So, one could say for those conditions (urinary incontinence, PTSD, Epilepsy, Addictions, and drug delivery), you can make a good case to use high intensity, but again in a clinical setting with a trained medical professional. Notably, three of these conditions are brain-related and were treated with rTMS; the other two, urinary incontinence and drug delivery, utilized specific features of high-intensity PEMF signals. In the case of urinary incontinence, high-intensity electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) was used to strengthen weak, involuntary muscles in the urinary tract. In the case of drug delivery, high intensity was used to create excessive electroporation (cells becoming more porous) to better deliver drugs/chemotherapy to cells. Almost all of these conditions are very specialized medical applications for a clinic, not for daily home use.
Besides those five exceptions, medium intensity had just as many, or even more, studies (and better ones). For example, while there were 10 high-intensity studies on pain relief, there were 14 on medium-intensity pain relief. However, unlike the high-intensity group, the medium-intensity group also included 9 studies on shutting off inflammation, whereas none were included in the high-intensity group. This is significant because, as we will see, Dr. Pawluk's prescription for high-intensity centers around reducing inflammation! Also of note, reviewing Dr. Pawluk's citations reveals that medium-intensity has 4 dozen regenerative studies spanning almost all tissue types (bone, nerve, cartilage, tendon, ligament, spinal disc, wound healing, skin, and more). In contrast, high-intensity has only a few regenerative studies and is limited to a few applications. This provides evidence that, while high-intensity does help with pain relief, low- and medium-intensity signals heal and regenerate tissues much more effectively, especially medium-intensity, high-slew-rate signals.
It is also worth noting that in one of Dr Pawluk's citations, he references an excellent meta-analysis of 46 PEMF studies on the immune-modulating effects of PEMF (for turning off inflammation and turning on healthy immunity to fight cancer and infections) in his eBook on cancer [14]. In this study, there are 27 medium-intensity, 18 low-intensity, and zero high-intensity studies[123][1].
[1] Intensities listed in this study: 1.0 mT, 4 mT, .1 mT, 8uT, .5 mT, 1.5 mT, 10 uT, 1.2 uT, 3.5 mT, 6.6 uT, 5uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, .2 uT, 1 mT, 100 uT, 500 uT, 500 uT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 2.25 mT, 45 mT, 1 mT, 4 mT, 100 uT, 10 uT, 1.5 mT, 1.2 mT, 5 mT, 5 mT, 1 mT, 8 mT, Low intensity GHz, 2.8 mT, 100 uT, .3 mT, 8 mT, 12.5 mT,, 1 mT, 1 mT, 6 mT, 2.2 mT, 1 mT. Note there are ZERO high intensity studies!
When you look carefully at all the high-intensity studies Dr. Pawluk cites - including rTMS - high intensity seems ONLY good for the 17 conditions listed below (in order of occurrence): Analgesia (pain relief) [23-32], Urinary incontinence [33-40], Major Depression/anxiety [41-44], PTSD [45-50], Epilepsy/seizures [51-54], Multiple Sclerosis M.S. [55-57], Addiction recovery [58-61], Parkinsons /tremors [62-65], cancer [66-67], Obesity/food addictions [68-69], Brain Entrainment/Sleep [70-71], Stroke recovery/ TB [72-73], Drug delivery [74-75], microcirculation [76], and bones [77]. So, high-intensity PEMF does have strong research support, but it is only applicable to a narrow range of conditions. Additionally, as we'll see, medium- and low-intensity PEMF studies have overlapping benefits for many of these conditions.
When you look carefully at all the Medium Intensity Studies Dr. Pawluk cites, we find that medium intensity is suitable for over 50+ conditions: Pain Relief /Migraines/back pain/neck/shoulder pain/Pelvic Pain/Complex regional pain/postoperative pain [78-91], Bone healing/fractures/Bone health [92-102], Osteoporosis [103-105], Cancer/tumors [106-116], Antibiotic/Boost Immunity [117-123], Nervous System/Nerve regeneration [124-130], Reduce inflammation [131-139], Wound Healing/Recovery from Surgery/general regeneration [140-147], Depression/anxiety [148-153], Brain Damage/Stroke/TBI (including Dr Pawluk's own study first!) [154-156], Diabetes/diabetic foot ulcer/retinopathy [157-160], Multiple Sclerosis M.S. [161-164], Microcirculation/heart health [165-167], Prosthetic integration/loosening [168-170], Cartilage/joint regeneration [171-172], Anti-aging (autophagy, HSP70, antioxidants) [173-175], Glaucoma/Macular Degeneration/eye health [176-178], Neurodegenerative disease (Alzheimer's, Parkinson's, ALS) [179-180], Brain Health [181], Eczema/Psoriasis [182-183], Osteoarthritis/arthritis [184-186], Digestion/Intestinal Health [187], Sperm Motility/Fertility/ATP synthesis [188], Liver Regeneration [189], Tendon regeneration [190-191], Tendinitis (rotator cuff) [192], Ligament healing [193], Collagen synthesis [193,195], Fibromyalgia [196] Spinal Disk regeneration [197], Increase cellular energy [198], Reduce Swelling and Edema [199-200], Decrease fibrosis [201].
The bolded groups in the high-intensity studies represent conditions not observed at medium intensity, but there were only five conditions. So, one could say for those conditions (urinary incontinence, PTSD, Epilepsy, Addictions, and drug delivery), you can make a good case to use high intensity, but again in a clinical setting with a trained medical professional. Notably, three of these conditions are brain-related and were treated with rTMS; the other two, urinary incontinence and drug delivery, utilized specific features of high-intensity PEMF signals. In the case of urinary incontinence, high-intensity electrical muscle stimulation (EMS) was used to strengthen weak, involuntary muscles in the urinary tract. In the case of drug delivery, high intensity was used to create excessive electroporation (cells becoming more porous) to better deliver drugs/chemotherapy to cells. Almost all of these conditions are very specialized medical applications for a clinic, not for daily home use.
Besides those five exceptions, medium intensity had just as many, or even more, studies (and better ones). For example, while there were 10 high-intensity studies on pain relief, there were 14 on medium-intensity pain relief. However, unlike the high-intensity group, the medium-intensity group also included 9 studies on shutting off inflammation, whereas none were included in the high-intensity group. This is significant because, as we will see, Dr. Pawluk's prescription for high-intensity centers around reducing inflammation! Also of note, reviewing Dr. Pawluk's citations reveals that medium-intensity has 4 dozen regenerative studies spanning almost all tissue types (bone, nerve, cartilage, tendon, ligament, spinal disc, wound healing, skin, and more). In contrast, high-intensity has only a few regenerative studies and is limited to a few applications. This provides evidence that, while high-intensity does help with pain relief, low- and medium-intensity signals heal and regenerate tissues much more effectively, especially medium-intensity, high-slew-rate signals.
It is also worth noting that in one of Dr Pawluk's citations, he references an excellent meta-analysis of 46 PEMF studies on the immune-modulating effects of PEMF (for turning off inflammation and turning on healthy immunity to fight cancer and infections) in his eBook on cancer [14]. In this study, there are 27 medium-intensity, 18 low-intensity, and zero high-intensity studies[123][1].
[1] Intensities listed in this study: 1.0 mT, 4 mT, .1 mT, 8uT, .5 mT, 1.5 mT, 10 uT, 1.2 uT, 3.5 mT, 6.6 uT, 5uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, .2 uT, 1 mT, 100 uT, 500 uT, 500 uT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 2.25 mT, 45 mT, 1 mT, 4 mT, 100 uT, 10 uT, 1.5 mT, 1.2 mT, 5 mT, 5 mT, 1 mT, 8 mT, Low intensity GHz, 2.8 mT, 100 uT, .3 mT, 8 mT, 12.5 mT,, 1 mT, 1 mT, 6 mT, 2.2 mT, 1 mT. Note there are ZERO high intensity studies!
What about Low Intensity?
From all of these citations, there were also many more low intensity PEMF studies compared to high intensity covering a wide range of conditions: Pain /Migraine relief [202-214], M.S. [215-225], Anxiety/Depression [225-235],Parkinsons [237-244], Cancer [245-251], Epilepsy /Seizures [252-259], Osteo-arthritis [260-264], Diabetes/Neuropathy / Foot Ulcers [265-267],Fibromyalgia [267-270], Sleep [271-275], Incontinence / Nocturnal Enuresis [276-279], Heart Health [280,281], Bone health/regeneration [282-286], Nerve regeneration [287-289], Immunity [290-294], ATP-ase/Energy [295,296]. Compared to high-intensity, there is overall better evidence for low-intensity in both the extensive meta-analysis of 3249 PEMF studies and Dr. Pawluk's own citations.
But what about comparing low-intensity to medium-intensity based on research? First, a meta-analysis of 3249 studies reveals that there are significantly more medium-intensity studies than low-intensity studies (75% vs. 20%). Perhaps more significant from this extensive meta-analysis is that medium intensity showed a significantly greater cellular response compared to both low and high intensity studies. When we look at all of Dr Pawluk's citations, there are close to the same number of low and medium intensity studies, but from this it can be seen that low intensity lacking research in the following areas compared to medium intensity: Osteoporosis, Wound Healing, Swelling & Edema, and perhaps most noteworthy - Regeneration (tendon , ligament , joint, disc, collagen). And there were many more anti-inflammatory studies with medium intensity than with low intensity. In fact, studies have shown that medium-intensity PEMF (1.5 mT) significantly outperforms low-intensity PEMF for pain relief, anti-inflammatory effects, cartilage regeneration, and ATP production [297-299].
Conclusion on Intensity in PEMF Research
When examining PEMF research as a whole, the clear winner in terms of scientific backing is medium intensity, ranging from 1 to 10 mT (10 to 100 gauss). The most comprehensive meta-analysis of PEMF studies ever conducted found that a whopping 75% of studies reported medium intensity. Even more significant was this extensive meta-analysis, which also reveals that medium-intensity studies showed a significantly greater positive cellular response compared to both high and low intensities [2]. Further evidence comes from examining all the citations in Dr. Pawluk's books, ebooks, and contributing chapters. Even though he is biased to promoting higher intensity, his studies still reveal that medium and low intensity have more research covering a wider range of conditions. High intensity does good research in certain areas like analgesia, PTSD, anxiety/depression and muscle stimulation for urinary incontinence, and it does have its place in a clinical setting, but medium and even low intensity is much better suited for daily home use as they both have not only much more research, but the research covers a much broader range of conditions than high intensity. Finally, when comparing low-intensity to medium-intensity PEMF, we find not only more research on medium-intensity PEMF, but also a better cellular response and studies showing that medium-intensity PEMF is more effective for inflammation, pain, and regeneration. Because medium intensity is the ideal intensity for creating the most therapeutic range of slew rates (10 T/s - 120 T/s), this analysis of PEMF intensity in research provides further confirmation that a medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF device is the most effective way to reap all the amazing benefits that PEMF therapy has to offer.
From all of these citations, there were also many more low intensity PEMF studies compared to high intensity covering a wide range of conditions: Pain /Migraine relief [202-214], M.S. [215-225], Anxiety/Depression [225-235],Parkinsons [237-244], Cancer [245-251], Epilepsy /Seizures [252-259], Osteo-arthritis [260-264], Diabetes/Neuropathy / Foot Ulcers [265-267],Fibromyalgia [267-270], Sleep [271-275], Incontinence / Nocturnal Enuresis [276-279], Heart Health [280,281], Bone health/regeneration [282-286], Nerve regeneration [287-289], Immunity [290-294], ATP-ase/Energy [295,296]. Compared to high-intensity, there is overall better evidence for low-intensity in both the extensive meta-analysis of 3249 PEMF studies and Dr. Pawluk's own citations.
But what about comparing low-intensity to medium-intensity based on research? First, a meta-analysis of 3249 studies reveals that there are significantly more medium-intensity studies than low-intensity studies (75% vs. 20%). Perhaps more significant from this extensive meta-analysis is that medium intensity showed a significantly greater cellular response compared to both low and high intensity studies. When we look at all of Dr Pawluk's citations, there are close to the same number of low and medium intensity studies, but from this it can be seen that low intensity lacking research in the following areas compared to medium intensity: Osteoporosis, Wound Healing, Swelling & Edema, and perhaps most noteworthy - Regeneration (tendon , ligament , joint, disc, collagen). And there were many more anti-inflammatory studies with medium intensity than with low intensity. In fact, studies have shown that medium-intensity PEMF (1.5 mT) significantly outperforms low-intensity PEMF for pain relief, anti-inflammatory effects, cartilage regeneration, and ATP production [297-299].
Conclusion on Intensity in PEMF Research
When examining PEMF research as a whole, the clear winner in terms of scientific backing is medium intensity, ranging from 1 to 10 mT (10 to 100 gauss). The most comprehensive meta-analysis of PEMF studies ever conducted found that a whopping 75% of studies reported medium intensity. Even more significant was this extensive meta-analysis, which also reveals that medium-intensity studies showed a significantly greater positive cellular response compared to both high and low intensities [2]. Further evidence comes from examining all the citations in Dr. Pawluk's books, ebooks, and contributing chapters. Even though he is biased to promoting higher intensity, his studies still reveal that medium and low intensity have more research covering a wider range of conditions. High intensity does good research in certain areas like analgesia, PTSD, anxiety/depression and muscle stimulation for urinary incontinence, and it does have its place in a clinical setting, but medium and even low intensity is much better suited for daily home use as they both have not only much more research, but the research covers a much broader range of conditions than high intensity. Finally, when comparing low-intensity to medium-intensity PEMF, we find not only more research on medium-intensity PEMF, but also a better cellular response and studies showing that medium-intensity PEMF is more effective for inflammation, pain, and regeneration. Because medium intensity is the ideal intensity for creating the most therapeutic range of slew rates (10 T/s - 120 T/s), this analysis of PEMF intensity in research provides further confirmation that a medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF device is the most effective way to reap all the amazing benefits that PEMF therapy has to offer.
Chapter 6:
High Intensity Myths Exposed
Small is powerful, less is more.
― Dr. Ross Adey
Before I begin dispelling the top seven myths about high-intensity promoters, influencers, and companies, I want to acknowledge that most high-intensity PEMF devices appear to work reasonably well for many people in addressing certain conditions, especially for intermittent use in a clinical setting. Plus, high intensity has strong anecdotal support from many clinicians and wellness clinics across the country, especially for pain relief[1]. The primary issue with high-intensity PEMF for daily home use is that it is overpriced, inefficient, and less effective at healing than medium-intensity PEMF, which is better supported by research-proven slew rates and intensities, as well as more clinical studies in general. Many studies show that a certain amount of intensity or induced micro-current is needed for optimal healing. Still, too much can be inhibitory [1-8] for actual tissue healing and regeneration, and sometimes even make things worse [2], so more is not better! While I am not against using high intensity for shorter periods or intermittently in a clinical setting, I am against the Bad Science (B.S.) myths and lies that some high-intensity PEMF influencers promote, which claim you need an expensive high-intensity device for daily home use for several incorrect reasons that we will explore next.
[1] Medium-intensity PEMF devices also help with pain relief and have the considerable advantage of accelerating healing and working for a much wider range of conditions than high-intensity devices.
High Intensity Myths Exposed
Small is powerful, less is more.
― Dr. Ross Adey
Before I begin dispelling the top seven myths about high-intensity promoters, influencers, and companies, I want to acknowledge that most high-intensity PEMF devices appear to work reasonably well for many people in addressing certain conditions, especially for intermittent use in a clinical setting. Plus, high intensity has strong anecdotal support from many clinicians and wellness clinics across the country, especially for pain relief[1]. The primary issue with high-intensity PEMF for daily home use is that it is overpriced, inefficient, and less effective at healing than medium-intensity PEMF, which is better supported by research-proven slew rates and intensities, as well as more clinical studies in general. Many studies show that a certain amount of intensity or induced micro-current is needed for optimal healing. Still, too much can be inhibitory [1-8] for actual tissue healing and regeneration, and sometimes even make things worse [2], so more is not better! While I am not against using high intensity for shorter periods or intermittently in a clinical setting, I am against the Bad Science (B.S.) myths and lies that some high-intensity PEMF influencers promote, which claim you need an expensive high-intensity device for daily home use for several incorrect reasons that we will explore next.
[1] Medium-intensity PEMF devices also help with pain relief and have the considerable advantage of accelerating healing and working for a much wider range of conditions than high-intensity devices.
High Intensity Myth #1: The Inverse Square FLAW
The first problem with many who promote high-intensity PEMF is that they make fundamental mistakes in applying the physics of electrodynamics[1] to PEMF. The most commonly cited error is using the inverse square law to justify the need for greater intensity or power to penetrate tissue. This inverse square "FLAW," as I call it, is a BIG mistake that shows an utter lack of understanding of basic physics. When you use the CORRECT equation, which is the Biot-Savart Law, you find that many medium and even many low intensity PEMF devices penetrate the body just fine.
[1] Electrodynamics examines the interactions between electric charges and magnetic fields. This fundamental branch of physics is governed by Maxwell's equations and the laws describing the forces on charged particles, providing the theoretical basis for understanding systems ranging from electric circuits to the interaction between light and matter, AND the physics behind PEMF therapy!
The first problem with many who promote high-intensity PEMF is that they make fundamental mistakes in applying the physics of electrodynamics[1] to PEMF. The most commonly cited error is using the inverse square law to justify the need for greater intensity or power to penetrate tissue. This inverse square "FLAW," as I call it, is a BIG mistake that shows an utter lack of understanding of basic physics. When you use the CORRECT equation, which is the Biot-Savart Law, you find that many medium and even many low intensity PEMF devices penetrate the body just fine.
[1] Electrodynamics examines the interactions between electric charges and magnetic fields. This fundamental branch of physics is governed by Maxwell's equations and the laws describing the forces on charged particles, providing the theoretical basis for understanding systems ranging from electric circuits to the interaction between light and matter, AND the physics behind PEMF therapy!
Dr. Pawluk is the main source of this blunder, as he uses a chart based on the inverse square law (see below right), which is the incorrect equation for PEMF, in all his books, articles, websites, and podcasts for all PEMF devices. He incorrectly claims that low- and medium-intensity PEMF devices do not penetrate deeply enough due to the inverse square law. The big problem is that he fails to realize that the inverse square law applies only to point sources, whereas PEMF coils are much larger than point sources! Because PEMF devices use different-sized coils, you would need a separate chart for each coil size, based on the correct Biot-Savart Law, since the drop-offs depend on coil size and geometry, not just the intensity and distance. Large coils penetrate deeper than small coils at a given intensity, as this graph clearly shows. Notice that Dr Pawluk's tables follow from the dotted line in this graph, and just how much MORE intensity larger coils have then his table dictates. For example at 5 inches, a 16 inch diameter PEMF coils has over 100 times more intensity that Dr Pawluk's table predicts which constitutes a 10,000% error! Conclusion: You cannot use the inverse square law as a justification for needing more power and higher
See this link https://www.bryantmeyers.com/dr-pawluks-high-intensity-myths-exposed.html for a MUCH more detailed analysis of Dr. Pawluk's Bad Science (B.S.), If you are even considering high intensity PEMF based on Dr Pawluk's advice, this website link is a MUST READ!!
[1] I have seen Dr. Pawluk in interviews basically admit that he may be using the incorrect equation, but justifies it by saying he table is approximately true. The problem is that IT ISN'T even close to being accurate for large coils. I did a test with a 10.5 inch PEMF loop that had an intensity of 29 mT in the middle of the loop. Dr. Pawluk's Inverse square law tables predict the intensity would fall to .5% at 5 inches away which would be .0145 mT. The Biot Savart Law (correct equation) predicts the field drops to 37% which is 1.1 mT. This is a 7600% error so clearly the inverse square law is NOT a good approximation (especially for large coils), it is catastrophically wrong! As further verification, I measured the intensity with a hall effect probe and got a value of 1.2 mT at 5 inches away almost perfectly matching my Biot Savart law calculations. See Appendix B for a detailed analysis!
See this link https://www.bryantmeyers.com/dr-pawluks-high-intensity-myths-exposed.html for a MUCH more detailed analysis of Dr. Pawluk's Bad Science (B.S.), If you are even considering high intensity PEMF based on Dr Pawluk's advice, this website link is a MUST READ!!
[1] I have seen Dr. Pawluk in interviews basically admit that he may be using the incorrect equation, but justifies it by saying he table is approximately true. The problem is that IT ISN'T even close to being accurate for large coils. I did a test with a 10.5 inch PEMF loop that had an intensity of 29 mT in the middle of the loop. Dr. Pawluk's Inverse square law tables predict the intensity would fall to .5% at 5 inches away which would be .0145 mT. The Biot Savart Law (correct equation) predicts the field drops to 37% which is 1.1 mT. This is a 7600% error so clearly the inverse square law is NOT a good approximation (especially for large coils), it is catastrophically wrong! As further verification, I measured the intensity with a hall effect probe and got a value of 1.2 mT at 5 inches away almost perfectly matching my Biot Savart law calculations. See Appendix B for a detailed analysis!
High Intensity Myth #2: The "More is Better Myth"
The second widespread myth within the PEMF community and natural healing fields is the mistaken belief that "more is better." This misconception reflects a limited understanding of human biology and the biophysics of living organisms. Our "supersize me", "give me more" mindset has gotten us into a lot of trouble. People think that if small is good, then large must be better. If one pill is good, two must be better. If one dose works, then two doses will work even better. The problem with the "More is Better" approach is that there is usually a price to pay for using substances or energies that are too high and unnatural.
As previously discussed in the section on slew rate, achieving optimal therapeutic effects requires selecting appropriate ranges of both intensity and pulse duration to generate an effective square wave or rapidly changing PEMF pulse. Numerous PEMF studies indicate that therapeutic outcomes decline when slew rates are either too low or too high. Ideally, a PEMF device should operate within a slew rate range of 10-160 T/s to ensure clinical accuracy and deliver optimal signals for reducing pain and inflammation, as well as promoting healing and regeneration. High-intensity PEMF devices often exhibit slew rates that are either excessively high or suboptimal due to slow pulse rise times. Evidence suggests that medium intensity levels, specifically in the 1-10 mT range, are most effective for achieving clinically validated slew rates.
The second widespread myth within the PEMF community and natural healing fields is the mistaken belief that "more is better." This misconception reflects a limited understanding of human biology and the biophysics of living organisms. Our "supersize me", "give me more" mindset has gotten us into a lot of trouble. People think that if small is good, then large must be better. If one pill is good, two must be better. If one dose works, then two doses will work even better. The problem with the "More is Better" approach is that there is usually a price to pay for using substances or energies that are too high and unnatural.
As previously discussed in the section on slew rate, achieving optimal therapeutic effects requires selecting appropriate ranges of both intensity and pulse duration to generate an effective square wave or rapidly changing PEMF pulse. Numerous PEMF studies indicate that therapeutic outcomes decline when slew rates are either too low or too high. Ideally, a PEMF device should operate within a slew rate range of 10-160 T/s to ensure clinical accuracy and deliver optimal signals for reducing pain and inflammation, as well as promoting healing and regeneration. High-intensity PEMF devices often exhibit slew rates that are either excessively high or suboptimal due to slow pulse rise times. Evidence suggests that medium intensity levels, specifically in the 1-10 mT range, are most effective for achieving clinically validated slew rates.
High Intensity Myth #3: The "Research Supports High Intensity" Myth
Another misconception promoted by certain individuals is the claim that there is more research supporting high-intensity PEMF. This assertion is inaccurate, as demonstrated by a comprehensive meta-analysis of 3,249 PEMF experiments and 92 publications, which effectively refutes this myth [9]. In reality, only approximately 3-4% of PEMF studies utilize intensities exceeding 1,000 gauss (100 mT), which qualifies as high intensity. The majority of successful PEMF studies that report intensity (about 75%) employ intensities between 10 and 100 gauss (1-10 mT). Furthermore, medium-intensity studies have demonstrated superior cellular responses compared to both high- and low-intensity PEMF [9].
Another misconception promoted by certain individuals is the claim that there is more research supporting high-intensity PEMF. This assertion is inaccurate, as demonstrated by a comprehensive meta-analysis of 3,249 PEMF experiments and 92 publications, which effectively refutes this myth [9]. In reality, only approximately 3-4% of PEMF studies utilize intensities exceeding 1,000 gauss (100 mT), which qualifies as high intensity. The majority of successful PEMF studies that report intensity (about 75%) employ intensities between 10 and 100 gauss (1-10 mT). Furthermore, medium-intensity studies have demonstrated superior cellular responses compared to both high- and low-intensity PEMF [9].
High Intensity Myth #4: The "High Intensity Heals You Faster" Myth
Another myth I have heard many times is that high-intensity heals you faster than lower-intensity. Clinics tout this and promote quicker recovery times, which is good for business, but unfortunately, there is no research evidence to support this claim. The misunderstanding arises because you can instantly feel high intensity. After all, the intensities are usually so high that the muscles will start twitching and contracting involuntarily, like EMS (electrical muscle stimulation). Also, high intensity CAN (but not always) have a powerful analgesic effect, like pain killers and steroid injections, but medium intensity works wonderfully for pain too! I have used high intensity extensively as an experiment on myself, and I find that high-slew-rate medium intensity heals me better and faster, and works as well for pain too!
As we mentioned, while high-intensity does have a place in a clinical setting, symptomatic relief does not necessarily translate into better or faster healing. Most studies show that lower and medium-intensity PEMF have the same benefits as high-intensity PEMF, plus many more. All the successful slew rate studies we cited (and others [1-8]) show that medium intensity heals the body better and faster than high intensity; none used intensities above 160 gauss (16 mT), and most used much lower intensities. Additionally, it is worth noting that there are over 30 times as many low- and medium-intensity studies as high-intensity studies, according to a large meta-analysis of over 3,200 PEMF studies [9].
One honest high-intensity guru and manufacturer of high-intensity PEMF devices admitted on a podcast that low-intensity PEMF heals faster than high-intensity PEMF for many conditions, which is why he included a low-intensity PEMF within his top-of-the-line high-intensity device. I am happy to see a few brave pioneers speaking the truth, even if it costs them sales [10].
Another myth I have heard many times is that high-intensity heals you faster than lower-intensity. Clinics tout this and promote quicker recovery times, which is good for business, but unfortunately, there is no research evidence to support this claim. The misunderstanding arises because you can instantly feel high intensity. After all, the intensities are usually so high that the muscles will start twitching and contracting involuntarily, like EMS (electrical muscle stimulation). Also, high intensity CAN (but not always) have a powerful analgesic effect, like pain killers and steroid injections, but medium intensity works wonderfully for pain too! I have used high intensity extensively as an experiment on myself, and I find that high-slew-rate medium intensity heals me better and faster, and works as well for pain too!
As we mentioned, while high-intensity does have a place in a clinical setting, symptomatic relief does not necessarily translate into better or faster healing. Most studies show that lower and medium-intensity PEMF have the same benefits as high-intensity PEMF, plus many more. All the successful slew rate studies we cited (and others [1-8]) show that medium intensity heals the body better and faster than high intensity; none used intensities above 160 gauss (16 mT), and most used much lower intensities. Additionally, it is worth noting that there are over 30 times as many low- and medium-intensity studies as high-intensity studies, according to a large meta-analysis of over 3,200 PEMF studies [9].
One honest high-intensity guru and manufacturer of high-intensity PEMF devices admitted on a podcast that low-intensity PEMF heals faster than high-intensity PEMF for many conditions, which is why he included a low-intensity PEMF within his top-of-the-line high-intensity device. I am happy to see a few brave pioneers speaking the truth, even if it costs them sales [10].
High Intensity Myth #5: You Need to "Feel Something" for PEMF to Work
Along with the "More is Better" myth, one of the biggest misunderstandings in PEMF, energy medicine, and holistic healing in general is that you must "feel something" for it to be working. While feeling something might be desirable in certain situations, such as a therapeutic massage or an infrared sauna, where you can physically experience the massage and heat, respectively, in more subtle forms of energy medicine and nutrition, that is not always the case. For example, you might not feel the benefits of taking a good multivitamin right away, whereas you do feel the effects of a five-hour energy drink due to the caffeine. Does that mean the five-hour energy is better for you, or that it heals you faster? Heck no! Sadly, the average American is impatient and seeks instant gratification, which is why high-intensity PEMF devices are so popular. But this overlooks the subtle mechanisms the body uses to heal itself. The signaling pathways triggered by good PEMF can take several hours to "kick in", and healing itself can take some time. Now, most people can feel a medium and even low intensity PEMF, but it is more subtle, like gentle tingles, subtle energy movement, warmth, and a feeling of relaxation - the body just goes 'Ahhhhhh!'
High intensity PEMF is more pronounced, and you undeniably feel it because there is so much Faraday induction that the motor threshold is reached, and your muscles start to twitch. The muscles and nerves are the two types of tissues/cells that are excitable. In the case of nerve cells, high intensity PEMF can induce Peripheral Nerve Stimulation PNS which includes paresthesia - electric shock sensations, pricking or tingling in the NERVES (which can cause nerve pain if the intensity is too high). In the case of muscle cells, the excitability manifests as fasciculation (fuh-sick-u-lation), an involuntary muscle twitch that anyone who has done high-intensity PEMF instantly feels. The key takeaway from this section is that nerve and muscle stimulation, although easily felt, does not necessarily translate into healing. The only exception is studies with high intensity on urinary incontinence, which do require muscle stimulation [11-18]. However, that is a rare exception, and we should always let research guide us, rather than relying on paid influencer opinions, marketing-based review sites, and anecdotal evidence.
If you decide to use high intensity, my advice is to listen to your body and avoid nerve pain and excessive fasciculation. As a test, I used a popular high-intensity device every day for 3 months, and I found that when I went too high, certain areas of my body experienced uncomfortable nerve pain. So, I used this as a guide to lower my dosage, aiming to avoid any discomfort. Feeling any kind of discomfort is NOT a healing crisis, and DO NOT think PEMF is like a "no pain, no gain" exercise program. In PEMF, you should NOT be experiencing pain, and if you do, LOWER THE INTENSITY right away! A little fasciculation seems to provide a nice massaging action, but too much is also unpleasant, which I have noticed. Not to sound like a broken record, but even these benefits of high intensity do not translate into actual healing, as low and medium intensity have more research to back them up, so really, there is no need to experience any discomfort at all! The all-important conclusion here is that in PEMF, "feeling something" does not mean you are "healing something".
Along with the "More is Better" myth, one of the biggest misunderstandings in PEMF, energy medicine, and holistic healing in general is that you must "feel something" for it to be working. While feeling something might be desirable in certain situations, such as a therapeutic massage or an infrared sauna, where you can physically experience the massage and heat, respectively, in more subtle forms of energy medicine and nutrition, that is not always the case. For example, you might not feel the benefits of taking a good multivitamin right away, whereas you do feel the effects of a five-hour energy drink due to the caffeine. Does that mean the five-hour energy is better for you, or that it heals you faster? Heck no! Sadly, the average American is impatient and seeks instant gratification, which is why high-intensity PEMF devices are so popular. But this overlooks the subtle mechanisms the body uses to heal itself. The signaling pathways triggered by good PEMF can take several hours to "kick in", and healing itself can take some time. Now, most people can feel a medium and even low intensity PEMF, but it is more subtle, like gentle tingles, subtle energy movement, warmth, and a feeling of relaxation - the body just goes 'Ahhhhhh!'
High intensity PEMF is more pronounced, and you undeniably feel it because there is so much Faraday induction that the motor threshold is reached, and your muscles start to twitch. The muscles and nerves are the two types of tissues/cells that are excitable. In the case of nerve cells, high intensity PEMF can induce Peripheral Nerve Stimulation PNS which includes paresthesia - electric shock sensations, pricking or tingling in the NERVES (which can cause nerve pain if the intensity is too high). In the case of muscle cells, the excitability manifests as fasciculation (fuh-sick-u-lation), an involuntary muscle twitch that anyone who has done high-intensity PEMF instantly feels. The key takeaway from this section is that nerve and muscle stimulation, although easily felt, does not necessarily translate into healing. The only exception is studies with high intensity on urinary incontinence, which do require muscle stimulation [11-18]. However, that is a rare exception, and we should always let research guide us, rather than relying on paid influencer opinions, marketing-based review sites, and anecdotal evidence.
If you decide to use high intensity, my advice is to listen to your body and avoid nerve pain and excessive fasciculation. As a test, I used a popular high-intensity device every day for 3 months, and I found that when I went too high, certain areas of my body experienced uncomfortable nerve pain. So, I used this as a guide to lower my dosage, aiming to avoid any discomfort. Feeling any kind of discomfort is NOT a healing crisis, and DO NOT think PEMF is like a "no pain, no gain" exercise program. In PEMF, you should NOT be experiencing pain, and if you do, LOWER THE INTENSITY right away! A little fasciculation seems to provide a nice massaging action, but too much is also unpleasant, which I have noticed. Not to sound like a broken record, but even these benefits of high intensity do not translate into actual healing, as low and medium intensity have more research to back them up, so really, there is no need to experience any discomfort at all! The all-important conclusion here is that in PEMF, "feeling something" does not mean you are "healing something".
High Intensity Myth #6: The Myth that the Human Body Partially Blocks PEMFs, so We Need More Intensity to Penetrate Deeper into Tissue
Besides using the inverse-square law fallacy, high-intensity companies and influencers peddle another prevalent penetration-depth myth: that PEMFs are blocked or slowed by bodily tissues. The “needing more power to penetrate” myth is simply a result of a lack of understanding of the physics and biophysics of magnetic fields and PEMFs. The magnetic permeability constant of the human body is something like 99.7% of free space[1], which means our bodies (along with the clothes we wear) are almost perfectly TRANSPARENT to magnetic fields and PEMFs (bones included); so, you do not need more power or higher intensities to penetrate tissues. Unlike PEMFs and magnetic fields, light, electricity, and electric fields do get blocked, reflected, refracted, absorbed, etc. The huge advantage of PEMF (even low-intensity PEMF) and magnetism in general is that it penetrates deeply into your tissue for maximal healing.
Whether a person is on a PEMF mat or not, the intensity drop-off with distance above the mat is approximately the same, as I have verified through measurements on several occasions. I can measure the intensity of the PEMF field at a given distance above the mat with a person on the mat and with no one on the mat; either way, you get the same intensity (and this also applies to slew-rate drop-off). Now, the PEMFs do decrease with distance, but recall the penetration depth is almost precisely the radius of the PEMF coil, which makes it easy to visualize how larger coils have a deeper penetration than smaller coils. And the Biot-Savart law is the correct equation to calculate this penetration, not the inverse-square law.
Tissues do absorb some of the energy of PEMF, but it turns out that PEMF highly targets damaged, diseased, and injured areas. PEMF is pathologically activated at the point of lesion or injury. The reason is that when cells are ruptured, ions leak out, making these areas more conductive to the absorption of PEMF energy at the site of injury. This focusing effect of PEMF induces healing microcurrents that stimulate healing and regeneration in various ways, as we have examined. The primary key to inducing these healing microcurrents is the slew rate, not intensity. While there is technically some loss of PEMF due to this absorption, it is minimal and difficult to measure, especially with low- and medium-powered PEMF devices that do not radiate fields (closed-loop magnetic fields). High-intensity devices tend to radiate a significant amount of incoherent and chaotic energy (aka electrosmog), which means the intensities seem to be blocked more by tissues with a low water content such as bone, but this does not apply to coherent closed-loop PEMF fields from well-made low and medium-intensity PEMF devices!
[1] The human body is weakly diamagnetic which opposes a magnetic field, but it's such a small amount it is negligible.
Besides using the inverse-square law fallacy, high-intensity companies and influencers peddle another prevalent penetration-depth myth: that PEMFs are blocked or slowed by bodily tissues. The “needing more power to penetrate” myth is simply a result of a lack of understanding of the physics and biophysics of magnetic fields and PEMFs. The magnetic permeability constant of the human body is something like 99.7% of free space[1], which means our bodies (along with the clothes we wear) are almost perfectly TRANSPARENT to magnetic fields and PEMFs (bones included); so, you do not need more power or higher intensities to penetrate tissues. Unlike PEMFs and magnetic fields, light, electricity, and electric fields do get blocked, reflected, refracted, absorbed, etc. The huge advantage of PEMF (even low-intensity PEMF) and magnetism in general is that it penetrates deeply into your tissue for maximal healing.
Whether a person is on a PEMF mat or not, the intensity drop-off with distance above the mat is approximately the same, as I have verified through measurements on several occasions. I can measure the intensity of the PEMF field at a given distance above the mat with a person on the mat and with no one on the mat; either way, you get the same intensity (and this also applies to slew-rate drop-off). Now, the PEMFs do decrease with distance, but recall the penetration depth is almost precisely the radius of the PEMF coil, which makes it easy to visualize how larger coils have a deeper penetration than smaller coils. And the Biot-Savart law is the correct equation to calculate this penetration, not the inverse-square law.
Tissues do absorb some of the energy of PEMF, but it turns out that PEMF highly targets damaged, diseased, and injured areas. PEMF is pathologically activated at the point of lesion or injury. The reason is that when cells are ruptured, ions leak out, making these areas more conductive to the absorption of PEMF energy at the site of injury. This focusing effect of PEMF induces healing microcurrents that stimulate healing and regeneration in various ways, as we have examined. The primary key to inducing these healing microcurrents is the slew rate, not intensity. While there is technically some loss of PEMF due to this absorption, it is minimal and difficult to measure, especially with low- and medium-powered PEMF devices that do not radiate fields (closed-loop magnetic fields). High-intensity devices tend to radiate a significant amount of incoherent and chaotic energy (aka electrosmog), which means the intensities seem to be blocked more by tissues with a low water content such as bone, but this does not apply to coherent closed-loop PEMF fields from well-made low and medium-intensity PEMF devices!
[1] The human body is weakly diamagnetic which opposes a magnetic field, but it's such a small amount it is negligible.
High Intensity Myth #7: The Myth That You Need to $Pay a Lot to Get Effective PEMF
The seventh myth is a profit-driven agenda to sell high-intensity PEMF devices, which are both more expensive for the consumer and more profitable for manufacturers, influencers, affiliates, and resellers. I am not saying this is always the case, but it is most definitely the case much of the time. Pair that with the fact that people in general tend to think that if something is more expensive, it works better. Therefore, some high-intensity companies exploit this idea because the cold, hard truth is that you make more money selling expensive, high-intensity PEMF devices, which is a powerful motivation to sell these devices. And even though the electronics to deliver more power do cost more, high intensity is very inefficient and less effective for healing, especially when slew rate is the key parameter for healing anyway, NOT INTENSITY. Medium-intensity PEMF can achieve research-proven, safe, and therapeutic slew rates at a significantly lower cost than high-intensity PEMF. As we previously discussed, you typically only need intensities in the ballpark of 1-10 mT (10 to 100 gauss) to create clinically proven slew rates.
The seventh myth is a profit-driven agenda to sell high-intensity PEMF devices, which are both more expensive for the consumer and more profitable for manufacturers, influencers, affiliates, and resellers. I am not saying this is always the case, but it is most definitely the case much of the time. Pair that with the fact that people in general tend to think that if something is more expensive, it works better. Therefore, some high-intensity companies exploit this idea because the cold, hard truth is that you make more money selling expensive, high-intensity PEMF devices, which is a powerful motivation to sell these devices. And even though the electronics to deliver more power do cost more, high intensity is very inefficient and less effective for healing, especially when slew rate is the key parameter for healing anyway, NOT INTENSITY. Medium-intensity PEMF can achieve research-proven, safe, and therapeutic slew rates at a significantly lower cost than high-intensity PEMF. As we previously discussed, you typically only need intensities in the ballpark of 1-10 mT (10 to 100 gauss) to create clinically proven slew rates.
Spark Gap, Dirty Electricity, and High Frequency Problems
There are two primary types of high-intensity PEMF devices: solid-state and spark-gap. Solid state is going to be the cleaner and better option of the two because of the nature of spark gaps to emit high frequencies in the high MHz range, which is considered electrosmog. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid spark-gap PEMF devices, as they rely on a highly inefficient, outdated technology. Spark gaps were in use about 120 years ago, decades before the advent of transistors or even vacuum tubes, to generate high-voltage pulses. Spark gap technology lives up to its name: an air gap that breaks down when the voltage reaches a high enough level. It is just a voltage breakdown across an air gap, no more complex or mystical than a spark plug.
This type of technology is so old that it is not even patentable (which is one reason many high-intensity PEMF companies use it). It generates massive amounts of very high-frequency EMI/RFI, or dirty power. Additionally, the crude waveform cannot be precisely defined because it is highly variable and sensitive to factors such as air humidity, which can affect dielectric breakdown at the air gap and alter the shape, duration, and peak of the crude pulse. It is almost laughable and sad at the same time to see PEMF devices advertised with “SPARK GAP TECHNOLOGY!!!” It is like advertising a television with “vacuum tube technology"! Actually, even vacuum tubes came after spark gaps! If you decide to use a high-intensity device intermittently, opt for a solid-state device. However, better yet, opt for the more researched and clinically accurate high-slew-rate medium-intensity PEMF. Interestingly, even crude PEMF spark-gap devices have been shown to offer some biological benefits, as evidenced by numerous testimonials. Still, my concern would be using long-term and getting too much EMF/electrosmog exposure.
High Intensity and Safety
One potential hazard with high intensity is using it on electrohypersensitive (EHS) people. For these individuals, it is recommended to stick to low- and medium-intensity PEMF. Another potential problem that could arise is using high intensity right over the heart. While you need incredibly high field strengths, as studies show, to injure heart patients and people with weak hearts or heart issues, I would avoid high intensity anywhere near the heart just to be safe. Fortunately, MRI safety studies show that nerve and muscle discomfort come well before any cardiac stimulation, so AS LONG as you listen to your body and don't overdo it, high intensity PEMF will be ok to use short term, but in my opinion, it is unnecessary as medium intensity high-slew-rate outperforms high intensity in dealing with most conditions. Also concerning is that all high-intensity systems I have tested have unwanted higher frequencies (electrosmog), especially those with spark gaps and poorly engineered systems. We'll take a close look at the potentially harmful effects of electrosmog in Chapter 8.
There are two primary types of high-intensity PEMF devices: solid-state and spark-gap. Solid state is going to be the cleaner and better option of the two because of the nature of spark gaps to emit high frequencies in the high MHz range, which is considered electrosmog. Additionally, it is advisable to avoid spark-gap PEMF devices, as they rely on a highly inefficient, outdated technology. Spark gaps were in use about 120 years ago, decades before the advent of transistors or even vacuum tubes, to generate high-voltage pulses. Spark gap technology lives up to its name: an air gap that breaks down when the voltage reaches a high enough level. It is just a voltage breakdown across an air gap, no more complex or mystical than a spark plug.
This type of technology is so old that it is not even patentable (which is one reason many high-intensity PEMF companies use it). It generates massive amounts of very high-frequency EMI/RFI, or dirty power. Additionally, the crude waveform cannot be precisely defined because it is highly variable and sensitive to factors such as air humidity, which can affect dielectric breakdown at the air gap and alter the shape, duration, and peak of the crude pulse. It is almost laughable and sad at the same time to see PEMF devices advertised with “SPARK GAP TECHNOLOGY!!!” It is like advertising a television with “vacuum tube technology"! Actually, even vacuum tubes came after spark gaps! If you decide to use a high-intensity device intermittently, opt for a solid-state device. However, better yet, opt for the more researched and clinically accurate high-slew-rate medium-intensity PEMF. Interestingly, even crude PEMF spark-gap devices have been shown to offer some biological benefits, as evidenced by numerous testimonials. Still, my concern would be using long-term and getting too much EMF/electrosmog exposure.
High Intensity and Safety
One potential hazard with high intensity is using it on electrohypersensitive (EHS) people. For these individuals, it is recommended to stick to low- and medium-intensity PEMF. Another potential problem that could arise is using high intensity right over the heart. While you need incredibly high field strengths, as studies show, to injure heart patients and people with weak hearts or heart issues, I would avoid high intensity anywhere near the heart just to be safe. Fortunately, MRI safety studies show that nerve and muscle discomfort come well before any cardiac stimulation, so AS LONG as you listen to your body and don't overdo it, high intensity PEMF will be ok to use short term, but in my opinion, it is unnecessary as medium intensity high-slew-rate outperforms high intensity in dealing with most conditions. Also concerning is that all high-intensity systems I have tested have unwanted higher frequencies (electrosmog), especially those with spark gaps and poorly engineered systems. We'll take a close look at the potentially harmful effects of electrosmog in Chapter 8.
Conclusions on PEMF Intensity - The Middle Way
Most PEMF studies support a middle-of-the-road PEMF intensity of 1-10 mT (10 -100 gauss) [9], which is the goldilocks zone or "just right" sweet spot for maximal healing. And while slew rate is THE most essential parameter, NOT intensity, having a certain amount of intensity is important because slew rate is peak intensity divided by the rise time. Based on the slew rate research we have reviewed, it appears that this medium intensity (1-10 mT) is indeed used most often, along with a fast-rising square wave or impulse signal. So based on all this research evidence, IN ADDITION to recommending a Slew rate between 10 T/s - 120 T/s, we would also recommend - ideally - a magnetic field intensity in the Goldilocks zone of PEMF research between 1-10mT using a fast rise time like around 100 μs. More intensity might be okay to use in the short term, but more is certainly not better for healing.
Summary: A Strong Case for Medium Intensity in PEMF Therapy Full Body Mats [1-10 mT]
1) Medium is the ideal intensity for a therapeutic slew rate [19-37].
2) Most PEMF studies are medium intensity between 1-10 mT (10-100 gauss) [9].
3) 1-10 mT ALSO has the maximum cellular response [9].
4) Medium intensity heals a much wider range of conditions [9, 38].
5) Medium is the best intensity range for bone and soft tissue healing & regeneration (no high intensity studies) [9, 38].
6) Medium is easily the best intensity range for pain and inflammation (no high-intensity studies) [38].
7) Medium intensity is better than low intensity as it allows for a higher slew rate and deeper penetration.
8) Medium Intensity is less likely to have electrosmog compared to high intensity.
9) High intensity has a very narrow range of applicability (but it DOES have a place in a clinical setting).
10) Most of the arguments for high intensity for daily home use are based on myths and misinformation, not research and physics, as this chapter and the last have gone through in detail.
Most PEMF studies support a middle-of-the-road PEMF intensity of 1-10 mT (10 -100 gauss) [9], which is the goldilocks zone or "just right" sweet spot for maximal healing. And while slew rate is THE most essential parameter, NOT intensity, having a certain amount of intensity is important because slew rate is peak intensity divided by the rise time. Based on the slew rate research we have reviewed, it appears that this medium intensity (1-10 mT) is indeed used most often, along with a fast-rising square wave or impulse signal. So based on all this research evidence, IN ADDITION to recommending a Slew rate between 10 T/s - 120 T/s, we would also recommend - ideally - a magnetic field intensity in the Goldilocks zone of PEMF research between 1-10mT using a fast rise time like around 100 μs. More intensity might be okay to use in the short term, but more is certainly not better for healing.
Summary: A Strong Case for Medium Intensity in PEMF Therapy Full Body Mats [1-10 mT]
1) Medium is the ideal intensity for a therapeutic slew rate [19-37].
2) Most PEMF studies are medium intensity between 1-10 mT (10-100 gauss) [9].
3) 1-10 mT ALSO has the maximum cellular response [9].
4) Medium intensity heals a much wider range of conditions [9, 38].
5) Medium is the best intensity range for bone and soft tissue healing & regeneration (no high intensity studies) [9, 38].
6) Medium is easily the best intensity range for pain and inflammation (no high-intensity studies) [38].
7) Medium intensity is better than low intensity as it allows for a higher slew rate and deeper penetration.
8) Medium Intensity is less likely to have electrosmog compared to high intensity.
9) High intensity has a very narrow range of applicability (but it DOES have a place in a clinical setting).
10) Most of the arguments for high intensity for daily home use are based on myths and misinformation, not research and physics, as this chapter and the last have gone through in detail.
Chapter 7:
Frequency and Resonance in PEMF Therapy
The human body is a dynamic, electromagnetic organism, resonating with the frequencies of the environment.
― Dr. Richard Gerber
For many years, I believed that low-intensity resonance-based PEMF, which matches the Earth's natural intensities and frequencies, was the best approach to PEMF and that low-intensity PEMF devices remain a valid option for sleep, relaxation, and overall health, as well as for sensitive individuals. My reasoning at the time was that these intensities and frequencies are native to us and, therefore, probably the best and most natural way to administer PEMF. However, as we have seen, low-intensity systems must rely solely on resonance, as there is usually insufficient intensity to generate a high-slew-rate signal.
Based on my deep dive into the science and research of PEMF over the past year and a half (and using and benefitting greatly from a medium intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF device the past year), the epiphany for me is that what best heals the body is not matching the PEMF intensity to the Earth intensity, but rather the goal of PEMF should be inducing healing microcurrents that match or mimic the human body's natural bioelectricity or "healing currents." This requires a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF (10-100 gauss) with a fast rise time, such as a square wave. Recall that magnetic fields do no work; it is the induced electric fields (which generate the healing microcurrents) that do most of the magic when it comes to healing.
While the physics makes sense, for me, it is much more than that. As I shared in the introduction, I've found personally that a medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF signal just flat-out works better than a low-intensity signal (especially for energy, athletic performance, pain, inflammation, and healing/regeneration). Additionally, it has more research backing it and is based on much better physics. Studies show that medium intensity is more effective than low intensity, especially for all forms of pain and inflammation [1-7]. Plus, a good medium-intensity PEMF device is often more affordable or on par with the quality of low-intensity devices, as the MLM business model of many popular low-intensity devices significantly inflates their prices!
So now that we have zeroed in on the best slew rates and intensities for PEMF, the question remains: Are frequency and resonance important? The answer is most definitely yes, but it is of secondary importance. As we’ll see, high-slew-rate PEMF signals span a broad frequency range.
Frequency and Resonance in PEMF Therapy
The human body is a dynamic, electromagnetic organism, resonating with the frequencies of the environment.
― Dr. Richard Gerber
For many years, I believed that low-intensity resonance-based PEMF, which matches the Earth's natural intensities and frequencies, was the best approach to PEMF and that low-intensity PEMF devices remain a valid option for sleep, relaxation, and overall health, as well as for sensitive individuals. My reasoning at the time was that these intensities and frequencies are native to us and, therefore, probably the best and most natural way to administer PEMF. However, as we have seen, low-intensity systems must rely solely on resonance, as there is usually insufficient intensity to generate a high-slew-rate signal.
Based on my deep dive into the science and research of PEMF over the past year and a half (and using and benefitting greatly from a medium intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF device the past year), the epiphany for me is that what best heals the body is not matching the PEMF intensity to the Earth intensity, but rather the goal of PEMF should be inducing healing microcurrents that match or mimic the human body's natural bioelectricity or "healing currents." This requires a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF (10-100 gauss) with a fast rise time, such as a square wave. Recall that magnetic fields do no work; it is the induced electric fields (which generate the healing microcurrents) that do most of the magic when it comes to healing.
While the physics makes sense, for me, it is much more than that. As I shared in the introduction, I've found personally that a medium-intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF signal just flat-out works better than a low-intensity signal (especially for energy, athletic performance, pain, inflammation, and healing/regeneration). Additionally, it has more research backing it and is based on much better physics. Studies show that medium intensity is more effective than low intensity, especially for all forms of pain and inflammation [1-7]. Plus, a good medium-intensity PEMF device is often more affordable or on par with the quality of low-intensity devices, as the MLM business model of many popular low-intensity devices significantly inflates their prices!
So now that we have zeroed in on the best slew rates and intensities for PEMF, the question remains: Are frequency and resonance important? The answer is most definitely yes, but it is of secondary importance. As we’ll see, high-slew-rate PEMF signals span a broad frequency range.
What is Frequency?
Before we discuss why frequency is important in PEMF, we need to define and explain what frequency is. Along with amplitude or intensity, frequency is basically what defines waves of energy. We are surrounded by waves every day. Light is an electromagnetic wave; the warmth of the sun is also an electromagnetic wave, and the sound of music playing is a sound wave. Waves in the ocean are waves made of water, and earthquakes are waves in the earth itself. PEMFs are waves of pulsating magnetic fields that vibrate with a given frequency or spectrum of frequencies. In general, a wave is a vibration that carries energy with it. The frequency of a wave is the number of times the wave (or signal) repeats itself in one second (the cycles per second), and is measured in Hertz (Hz), named after the physicist Heinrich Hertz. The higher the frequency, the more vibrations a wave has, and hence the more energy it has.
A good example of frequency is light and electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are vibrations that occur in both electric and magnetic fields. Our eyes perceive frequencies through electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum, which we refer to as visible light, ranging from the lower frequency of red to the higher frequency of violet. The entire electromagnetic spectrum <shown here> encompasses radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
Before we discuss why frequency is important in PEMF, we need to define and explain what frequency is. Along with amplitude or intensity, frequency is basically what defines waves of energy. We are surrounded by waves every day. Light is an electromagnetic wave; the warmth of the sun is also an electromagnetic wave, and the sound of music playing is a sound wave. Waves in the ocean are waves made of water, and earthquakes are waves in the earth itself. PEMFs are waves of pulsating magnetic fields that vibrate with a given frequency or spectrum of frequencies. In general, a wave is a vibration that carries energy with it. The frequency of a wave is the number of times the wave (or signal) repeats itself in one second (the cycles per second), and is measured in Hertz (Hz), named after the physicist Heinrich Hertz. The higher the frequency, the more vibrations a wave has, and hence the more energy it has.
A good example of frequency is light and electromagnetic waves. Electromagnetic waves are vibrations that occur in both electric and magnetic fields. Our eyes perceive frequencies through electromagnetic waves in the visible spectrum, which we refer to as visible light, ranging from the lower frequency of red to the higher frequency of violet. The entire electromagnetic spectrum <shown here> encompasses radio waves, microwaves, infrared, visible light, ultraviolet, X-rays, and gamma rays.
The Vast Electromagnetic Spectrum
Visible light is an electromagnetic wave, BUT it is only a tiny sliver of the vast electromagnetic spectrum. If this entire spectrum were laid out across the Brooklyn Bridge, the portion we can see with our eyes would be just a few feet wide! This electromagnetic spectrum spans a range of 10^22 wavelengths, from 10^-14 m at one extreme to 10^8 m at the other. In terms of doublings, 10^22 ≈ 2^73, or 73 octaves, since each octave represents a doubling of frequency. This is an ENORMOUS spectrum, ranging from electromagnetic frequencies that have wavelengths smaller than a proton to frequencies with wavelengths the size of the earth[1]!
[1] Frequency (v) and wavelength (λ) of electromagnetic waves are related by the equation c=λv, where c is the speed of light. From this equation, you can see that frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, so a higher frequency has a shorter wavelength and a lower frequency has a longer wavelength. The subtle nuance is that frequency measures energy in the time domain, whereas wavelength measures it in the spatial domain.
Visible light is an electromagnetic wave, BUT it is only a tiny sliver of the vast electromagnetic spectrum. If this entire spectrum were laid out across the Brooklyn Bridge, the portion we can see with our eyes would be just a few feet wide! This electromagnetic spectrum spans a range of 10^22 wavelengths, from 10^-14 m at one extreme to 10^8 m at the other. In terms of doublings, 10^22 ≈ 2^73, or 73 octaves, since each octave represents a doubling of frequency. This is an ENORMOUS spectrum, ranging from electromagnetic frequencies that have wavelengths smaller than a proton to frequencies with wavelengths the size of the earth[1]!
[1] Frequency (v) and wavelength (λ) of electromagnetic waves are related by the equation c=λv, where c is the speed of light. From this equation, you can see that frequency and wavelength are inversely proportional, so a higher frequency has a shorter wavelength and a lower frequency has a longer wavelength. The subtle nuance is that frequency measures energy in the time domain, whereas wavelength measures it in the spatial domain.
Besides visible light from the sun, there are also natural magnetic frequencies (PEMFs) of the Earth, known as the Schumann Resonances and Geomagnetic Frequencies, which range roughly from 0 to 50 Hz and are referred to as extremely low frequencies (ELFs). Our body and mind are deeply connected and "tuned" to these natural PEMF frequencies, providing a foundation for understanding which frequencies our body and mind best respond to therapeutically.
Besides being all around us, the earth's natural PEMFs are essential elements of health which I talk about in detail in my book PEMF - The 5th Element of Health [8] where I summarize studies by Rutger Wever, Valerie Hunt, Dr. Nakagawa, NASA and others showing that these energies of planet earth are essential like energetic nutrients (electroceuticals) that we need to be healthy. Without the earth's natural PEMFs, the body exhibits rapid bone loss, muscle degeneration, increased risk of blood clots, lower energy levels, and even depression. Interestingly, PEMFs are included in all manned space missions for these reasons. The International Space Station (ISS) is an example that utilizes large PEMF coils in its walls. This is why I sometimes call PEMF - vitamin "P" because it helps us to supplement this essential energy, which is important. After all, in our modern world, we spend too much time indoors, and UNHEALTHY EMFs bombard us and drown out the beautiful symphony of Nature.
While the natural frequencies and intensities of the Earth are essential to maintaining our health, they are not as therapeutic for injuries, inflammation, and pain as medium-intensity PEMF, which mimics the body's healing microcurrents. A good analogy would be Vitamin C. Getting a small amount helps prevent scurvy, but if you are sick, you need a higher dose to stimulate immunity and healing (but too much can cause diarrhea). This is similar to PEMF: low intensities that match the Earth's magnetic field are beneficial for maintenance. Medium intensity and high slew rate are more therapeutic for healing, while high intensity is usually too much for daily use.
Besides the Schumann Resonances and geomagnetic frequencies, there are also higher frequencies (up to ~30,000 Hz) from the 8 million lightning strikes that occur every day on planet Earth. These are broadly categorized by how they sound (sferics, whistlers, and tweeks[1]) when the frequency is converted acoustically. It turns out that, in addition to these low essential frequencies (Geomagnetic and Schumann), a good PEMF signal requires higher frequencies to achieve a high slew rate, ideally within the range of Earth's natural higher frequencies (0-30,000 Hz).
[1] Note on Sferics, Whistlers and Tweeks (0-30,000 Hz): The source of most natural radio signals is lightning. When a lightning bolt strikes, a massive amount of charge is moved, and this acts in much the same way as moving charge in a radio transmitting antenna. The frequencies emitted by lightning range from 0 Hz to over 30 kHz, with all frequencies being emitted simultaneously with the visible flash of lightning.
Besides being all around us, the earth's natural PEMFs are essential elements of health which I talk about in detail in my book PEMF - The 5th Element of Health [8] where I summarize studies by Rutger Wever, Valerie Hunt, Dr. Nakagawa, NASA and others showing that these energies of planet earth are essential like energetic nutrients (electroceuticals) that we need to be healthy. Without the earth's natural PEMFs, the body exhibits rapid bone loss, muscle degeneration, increased risk of blood clots, lower energy levels, and even depression. Interestingly, PEMFs are included in all manned space missions for these reasons. The International Space Station (ISS) is an example that utilizes large PEMF coils in its walls. This is why I sometimes call PEMF - vitamin "P" because it helps us to supplement this essential energy, which is important. After all, in our modern world, we spend too much time indoors, and UNHEALTHY EMFs bombard us and drown out the beautiful symphony of Nature.
While the natural frequencies and intensities of the Earth are essential to maintaining our health, they are not as therapeutic for injuries, inflammation, and pain as medium-intensity PEMF, which mimics the body's healing microcurrents. A good analogy would be Vitamin C. Getting a small amount helps prevent scurvy, but if you are sick, you need a higher dose to stimulate immunity and healing (but too much can cause diarrhea). This is similar to PEMF: low intensities that match the Earth's magnetic field are beneficial for maintenance. Medium intensity and high slew rate are more therapeutic for healing, while high intensity is usually too much for daily use.
Besides the Schumann Resonances and geomagnetic frequencies, there are also higher frequencies (up to ~30,000 Hz) from the 8 million lightning strikes that occur every day on planet Earth. These are broadly categorized by how they sound (sferics, whistlers, and tweeks[1]) when the frequency is converted acoustically. It turns out that, in addition to these low essential frequencies (Geomagnetic and Schumann), a good PEMF signal requires higher frequencies to achieve a high slew rate, ideally within the range of Earth's natural higher frequencies (0-30,000 Hz).
[1] Note on Sferics, Whistlers and Tweeks (0-30,000 Hz): The source of most natural radio signals is lightning. When a lightning bolt strikes, a massive amount of charge is moved, and this acts in much the same way as moving charge in a radio transmitting antenna. The frequencies emitted by lightning range from 0 Hz to over 30 kHz, with all frequencies being emitted simultaneously with the visible flash of lightning.
Why Frequency IS of secondary Importance in PEMF
Now, what is confusing about frequency in the PEMF industry is that for complex signals, what is listed as frequency is actually the repetition rate[1]. The repetition rate in PEMF is basically the frequency for non-sinusoidal signals (i.e., square waves and sawtooth waves) that repeat themselves. For example, with a square wave, it would be the number of square wave pulses per second (PPS). In the <image shown here> (which is a 1-second window), the repetition rate for each of these pulses would be 3 Hz (three pulses per second). Can you see that?
While the Slew rate is the most critical healing parameter of a PEMF signal, the pulse repetition rate or pulses per second is of secondary significance, and sadly, many PEMF companies get this WRONG! It is crucial because research suggests that the overall repetition rate, or pulses per second (PPS), interacts with the central nervous system to support brain and body entrainment. Additionally, the repetition rate is crucial for dosage or dosimetry because it relates to the total energy transferred from the PEMF device to the body (along with the slew rate). For example, if you have 10 pulses per second instead of 5, that equates to TWICE the induced energy, assuming the same slew rate (same peak intensity and rise time).
[1] Frequency in PEMF devices has three layers or levels. The repetition rate is one layer as explained above. But there is also the carrier frequency, and the spectral content (or frequency content). We'll look at spectral content frequencies later in this chapter. The carrier frequency is the fundamental or dominate frequency in a signal. Sometimes PEMF signals are simply pulsed sine waves, which in this case the sine wave is the carrier frequency and the rate of pulsing is the repetition rate. We'll see that with ALL the cheap Chinese crystal mats, the carrier frequency is simply 60 Hz (or 50 Hz in Europe) which is electrosmog! Buyer Beware: what they call frequency is simply the rate of turning 60 Hz on and off.
Now, what is confusing about frequency in the PEMF industry is that for complex signals, what is listed as frequency is actually the repetition rate[1]. The repetition rate in PEMF is basically the frequency for non-sinusoidal signals (i.e., square waves and sawtooth waves) that repeat themselves. For example, with a square wave, it would be the number of square wave pulses per second (PPS). In the <image shown here> (which is a 1-second window), the repetition rate for each of these pulses would be 3 Hz (three pulses per second). Can you see that?
While the Slew rate is the most critical healing parameter of a PEMF signal, the pulse repetition rate or pulses per second is of secondary significance, and sadly, many PEMF companies get this WRONG! It is crucial because research suggests that the overall repetition rate, or pulses per second (PPS), interacts with the central nervous system to support brain and body entrainment. Additionally, the repetition rate is crucial for dosage or dosimetry because it relates to the total energy transferred from the PEMF device to the body (along with the slew rate). For example, if you have 10 pulses per second instead of 5, that equates to TWICE the induced energy, assuming the same slew rate (same peak intensity and rise time).
[1] Frequency in PEMF devices has three layers or levels. The repetition rate is one layer as explained above. But there is also the carrier frequency, and the spectral content (or frequency content). We'll look at spectral content frequencies later in this chapter. The carrier frequency is the fundamental or dominate frequency in a signal. Sometimes PEMF signals are simply pulsed sine waves, which in this case the sine wave is the carrier frequency and the rate of pulsing is the repetition rate. We'll see that with ALL the cheap Chinese crystal mats, the carrier frequency is simply 60 Hz (or 50 Hz in Europe) which is electrosmog! Buyer Beware: what they call frequency is simply the rate of turning 60 Hz on and off.
PEMF Repetition Rate and Brain Entrainment
Brain waves are repetitive patterns of electrical activity in the brain that can be measured using an EEG (electroencephalogram). The five different categories of brain waves are shown in order of descending frequency (measured in Hz): gamma, beta, alpha, theta, and delta. The frequency of brain waves increases in proportion to brain activity.
Gamma: 30-100 Hz (Hyperactive or sometimes hyper-creative)
Beta: 12.5 - 30 Hz (Alert, active, and workday mind)
Alpha: 7.5-12.5 Hz (Relaxation, meditation, massage, etc.)
Theta: 4-7 Hz (Drifting to sleep, hypnotic, deep meditation)
Delta: .5-4 Hz (Deep sleep)
Also it is important to note that the frequency range for a "typical" neuron firing is from ~1 Hz (1 spike per second) to ~200 Hz (200 spikes per second), so usually it does not make sense to use frequencies repetition rates high than 200 Hz, because the neurons could not "hear/see" them (plus this would be overstimulating anyway).
Pulsing a PEMF device at a regular (coherent) rate can have a dramatic effect if the repetition rate finds a natural resonance in the system upon which it impinges. Good PEMF systems utilize repetition rate frequencies that synchronize the body and brain with the body's circadian rhythms, such as beta (alert) frequencies during the day and theta/delta (sleep) frequencies at night. It does this through brainwave entrainment. Brainwave entrainment refers to the observation that brainwaves (large-scale electrical oscillations in the brain) naturally synchronize to the rhythm of periodic external stimuli, such as PEMF repetition rate frequencies (other examples include flickering lights, speech, music, and tactile stimuli, all at specific frequencies).
Recommended PEMF repetition rates to use:
15-23 Hz Beta or active alert stimulation
7.8-13 Hz for Alpha (especially good are 7.83 for Schumann Resonance and 10 Hz because of so much research)
1-5 Hz for Sleep
Brain waves are repetitive patterns of electrical activity in the brain that can be measured using an EEG (electroencephalogram). The five different categories of brain waves are shown in order of descending frequency (measured in Hz): gamma, beta, alpha, theta, and delta. The frequency of brain waves increases in proportion to brain activity.
Gamma: 30-100 Hz (Hyperactive or sometimes hyper-creative)
Beta: 12.5 - 30 Hz (Alert, active, and workday mind)
Alpha: 7.5-12.5 Hz (Relaxation, meditation, massage, etc.)
Theta: 4-7 Hz (Drifting to sleep, hypnotic, deep meditation)
Delta: .5-4 Hz (Deep sleep)
Also it is important to note that the frequency range for a "typical" neuron firing is from ~1 Hz (1 spike per second) to ~200 Hz (200 spikes per second), so usually it does not make sense to use frequencies repetition rates high than 200 Hz, because the neurons could not "hear/see" them (plus this would be overstimulating anyway).
Pulsing a PEMF device at a regular (coherent) rate can have a dramatic effect if the repetition rate finds a natural resonance in the system upon which it impinges. Good PEMF systems utilize repetition rate frequencies that synchronize the body and brain with the body's circadian rhythms, such as beta (alert) frequencies during the day and theta/delta (sleep) frequencies at night. It does this through brainwave entrainment. Brainwave entrainment refers to the observation that brainwaves (large-scale electrical oscillations in the brain) naturally synchronize to the rhythm of periodic external stimuli, such as PEMF repetition rate frequencies (other examples include flickering lights, speech, music, and tactile stimuli, all at specific frequencies).
Recommended PEMF repetition rates to use:
15-23 Hz Beta or active alert stimulation
7.8-13 Hz for Alpha (especially good are 7.83 for Schumann Resonance and 10 Hz because of so much research)
1-5 Hz for Sleep
The Best Way to Do Morning and Night PEMF Brainwave Entrainment
Brain entrainment research has shown that the best way to wake the brain in the morning and help it fall asleep at night is to do so gradually. For the morning, ideally, you want to start at a lower frequency and increase; at night, ideally, you want to start at a higher frequency and decrease. This further helps speed up or slow down the brain (instead of just using a single frequency, which is more of a shock or jolt to the system).
For example, in the morning, you could start at 5 Hz to help you transition from your groggy early-morning brain, and then slowly increase the pulse repetition rate to 23 Hz (a well-researched Beta frequency to help you feel awake and alert, like an energetic cup of coffee). This gradual approach is similar to sunrise machines, which start dim and reddish (lower light frequency) and gradually increase the light to a more yellow (higher light frequency) and brighter hue in your bedroom. Contrast this with a big, bright spotlight shining on your face first thing in the morning, which would be a shock to your body and mind.
In the evening, you could, for example, start at around 7.8 Hz (because you are hopefully a little relaxed before bed) and slowly lower it to 0.5 Hz (the delta deep sleep frequency). Again, these sunrise machines have a sunset function that slowly dims and warms the light (yellow to reddish = higher to lower frequency). There is a reason good brain entrainment systems on the market do this, cascading up and down (morning and night, respectively), as it more gently and effectively lead the brain to the desired state (sleep, energy, relaxation, etc.). Makes sense, right? Of course it does, but sadly, very few PEMF companies do this[1]!
[1] If you want to maintain a high-slew-rate signal on one frequency, 10 Hz is an excellent choice, as it is one of the best researched, if not the best researched, repetition rate frequency. For local application, or just a balancing frequency, this is a great choice!
Brain entrainment research has shown that the best way to wake the brain in the morning and help it fall asleep at night is to do so gradually. For the morning, ideally, you want to start at a lower frequency and increase; at night, ideally, you want to start at a higher frequency and decrease. This further helps speed up or slow down the brain (instead of just using a single frequency, which is more of a shock or jolt to the system).
For example, in the morning, you could start at 5 Hz to help you transition from your groggy early-morning brain, and then slowly increase the pulse repetition rate to 23 Hz (a well-researched Beta frequency to help you feel awake and alert, like an energetic cup of coffee). This gradual approach is similar to sunrise machines, which start dim and reddish (lower light frequency) and gradually increase the light to a more yellow (higher light frequency) and brighter hue in your bedroom. Contrast this with a big, bright spotlight shining on your face first thing in the morning, which would be a shock to your body and mind.
In the evening, you could, for example, start at around 7.8 Hz (because you are hopefully a little relaxed before bed) and slowly lower it to 0.5 Hz (the delta deep sleep frequency). Again, these sunrise machines have a sunset function that slowly dims and warms the light (yellow to reddish = higher to lower frequency). There is a reason good brain entrainment systems on the market do this, cascading up and down (morning and night, respectively), as it more gently and effectively lead the brain to the desired state (sleep, energy, relaxation, etc.). Makes sense, right? Of course it does, but sadly, very few PEMF companies do this[1]!
[1] If you want to maintain a high-slew-rate signal on one frequency, 10 Hz is an excellent choice, as it is one of the best researched, if not the best researched, repetition rate frequency. For local application, or just a balancing frequency, this is a great choice!
Repetition Rate or Pulses Per Second and Dosage (D=R×t)
Besides brain entrainment, repetition rates are also crucial in dosing, as more pulses per second mean more energy delivered per second. A higher repetition rate allows for a shorter session time, but it is probably more important to focus on the brain entrainment effects. A higher repetition rate corresponds to more PEMF pulses per second (PPS), resulting in more energy being induced within a given time frame compared to a lower repetition rate. This should make sense because the EMF, or energy-induced, occurs on the rising and falling edges of the signal, as defined by the slew rate (dB/dt). If you double the repetition rate, you double the amount of energy induced. The total dose (D = total number of pulses in a PEMF treatment) can be calculated as D = R × t, where R = repetition rate (pulses per second) and t = treatment duration (seconds) [9]. This calculation determines the dosage of a given slew rate for a specific PEMF device. The total energy E is E = R × t × EMF, where EMF is the induced energy per leading edge, determined by the slew rate. If this is confusing, don't worry, it is best to focus on the slew rate for healing and the repetition rate for brain entrainment[1].
The reason its best to focus on the brain entrainment effects of the repetition rate (and not so much dosage), is that it works out perfectly for proper circadian rhythms because in the morning not only do you want an energizing awake and alert Beta frequencies like say 20 Hz, you ALSO want MORE ENERGY like an energetic cup of coffee, so inducing more energy makes sense (higher dose). After work, you want to mellow out and relax, so a 7.8 Hz Schumann or a 10 Hz repetition would be relaxing and a little less energetic (lower dose). And before bed, a 1-3 Hz repetition rate will not only entrain your brain to a lower theta/delta sleep frequency, but it is also less energy-producing, so it will be like a nice, relaxing cup of Chamomile tea (not too stimulating). Additionally, it is beneficial to use higher intensities (higher slew rates) in the morning and lower intensities (lower slew rates) at night, for the same reasons we just mentioned.
[1] Along with repetition rate, time is also a significant factor in dosage. Aim for at least 30 minutes of continuous use on a high-slew-rate full-body mat. Promising research shows that it takes 30 minutes for the peak anti-inflammatory benefits to "kick in" [10]. And because inflammation is at the root of nearly every disease, 30 minutes is a good target to aim for in a session.
Besides brain entrainment, repetition rates are also crucial in dosing, as more pulses per second mean more energy delivered per second. A higher repetition rate allows for a shorter session time, but it is probably more important to focus on the brain entrainment effects. A higher repetition rate corresponds to more PEMF pulses per second (PPS), resulting in more energy being induced within a given time frame compared to a lower repetition rate. This should make sense because the EMF, or energy-induced, occurs on the rising and falling edges of the signal, as defined by the slew rate (dB/dt). If you double the repetition rate, you double the amount of energy induced. The total dose (D = total number of pulses in a PEMF treatment) can be calculated as D = R × t, where R = repetition rate (pulses per second) and t = treatment duration (seconds) [9]. This calculation determines the dosage of a given slew rate for a specific PEMF device. The total energy E is E = R × t × EMF, where EMF is the induced energy per leading edge, determined by the slew rate. If this is confusing, don't worry, it is best to focus on the slew rate for healing and the repetition rate for brain entrainment[1].
The reason its best to focus on the brain entrainment effects of the repetition rate (and not so much dosage), is that it works out perfectly for proper circadian rhythms because in the morning not only do you want an energizing awake and alert Beta frequencies like say 20 Hz, you ALSO want MORE ENERGY like an energetic cup of coffee, so inducing more energy makes sense (higher dose). After work, you want to mellow out and relax, so a 7.8 Hz Schumann or a 10 Hz repetition would be relaxing and a little less energetic (lower dose). And before bed, a 1-3 Hz repetition rate will not only entrain your brain to a lower theta/delta sleep frequency, but it is also less energy-producing, so it will be like a nice, relaxing cup of Chamomile tea (not too stimulating). Additionally, it is beneficial to use higher intensities (higher slew rates) in the morning and lower intensities (lower slew rates) at night, for the same reasons we just mentioned.
[1] Along with repetition rate, time is also a significant factor in dosage. Aim for at least 30 minutes of continuous use on a high-slew-rate full-body mat. Promising research shows that it takes 30 minutes for the peak anti-inflammatory benefits to "kick in" [10]. And because inflammation is at the root of nearly every disease, 30 minutes is a good target to aim for in a session.
Varying the Repetition Rate to Prevent Habituation
Desensitization to PEMF typically occurs gradually, over several weeks or months. Adding variation to the pulse pattern prevents habituation, and the body's responsiveness can even improve over time. This is similar to varying your workout to avoid plateaus and continue making progress.
A few things help to create variation
- Using a more complex signal (static magnets and sine wave PEMF are the most repetitive and easiest to acclimate to)
- Varying the frequencies of the repetition rates or having them cascade up and down
- Varying the intensity
- Changing Polarity (bipolar pulses)
- Putting Pausing in between bursts of pulses (called pulse-pause modulation)
- Varying the session duration
- Taking a day off every now and then
Desensitization to PEMF typically occurs gradually, over several weeks or months. Adding variation to the pulse pattern prevents habituation, and the body's responsiveness can even improve over time. This is similar to varying your workout to avoid plateaus and continue making progress.
A few things help to create variation
- Using a more complex signal (static magnets and sine wave PEMF are the most repetitive and easiest to acclimate to)
- Varying the frequencies of the repetition rates or having them cascade up and down
- Varying the intensity
- Changing Polarity (bipolar pulses)
- Putting Pausing in between bursts of pulses (called pulse-pause modulation)
- Varying the session duration
- Taking a day off every now and then
Spectral Content or Bandwidth of a PEMF Signal
When looking at a PEMF signal, you can look at it with two eyes. One eye is in the time domain with an oscilloscope, and the other eye is in the frequency domain with a spectrum analyzer or a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) on a good oscilloscope. When you look at a PEMF signal in the time domain, you can see the signal shape, calculate its slew rate, and also see the repetition rate or pulses per second. When you look at a PEMF signal in the frequency domain, you see all the frequencies that make up the signal and their relative amplitudes. From this, you can identify the most dominant frequencies and define the spectral content.
The spectral content or bandwidth of a PEMF signal is a crucial parameter often cited in PEMF research, alongside intensity, slew rate, and repetition rate. It is simply the total range, or bandwidth, of frequencies present in a signal at a level that is significant enough. Slew rate and spectral content are, in some cases inverses of each other in that if you have a high slew rate, you are going to have a broad spectrum of frequencies correspondingly. This is based on basic Fourier mathematics (the Fourier transform), where higher-slew-rate PEMF pulses, with steeper leading edges, exhibit a broader range of frequencies. A typical well-engineered square wave will have spectral content from roughly 0-30,000 Hz, which is still aligned with the higher frequencies found in nature (sferics, whistlers, and tweeks)[1].
[1] A Fourier transform is a mathematical tool that breaks down a signal (like a PEMF signal) from its original time domain into its constituent frequencies. By doing so, it provides a "frequency domain" representation of the signal, revealing both the frequencies present and the amplitude of each frequency component. The amplitude of each frequency indicates how much of a specific frequency is present in the original signal. Interestingly, graphic equalizers on a good stereo roughly break the music down into different frequency bands or domains ranging from low bass to high treble.
When looking at a PEMF signal, you can look at it with two eyes. One eye is in the time domain with an oscilloscope, and the other eye is in the frequency domain with a spectrum analyzer or a FFT (Fast Fourier Transform) on a good oscilloscope. When you look at a PEMF signal in the time domain, you can see the signal shape, calculate its slew rate, and also see the repetition rate or pulses per second. When you look at a PEMF signal in the frequency domain, you see all the frequencies that make up the signal and their relative amplitudes. From this, you can identify the most dominant frequencies and define the spectral content.
The spectral content or bandwidth of a PEMF signal is a crucial parameter often cited in PEMF research, alongside intensity, slew rate, and repetition rate. It is simply the total range, or bandwidth, of frequencies present in a signal at a level that is significant enough. Slew rate and spectral content are, in some cases inverses of each other in that if you have a high slew rate, you are going to have a broad spectrum of frequencies correspondingly. This is based on basic Fourier mathematics (the Fourier transform), where higher-slew-rate PEMF pulses, with steeper leading edges, exhibit a broader range of frequencies. A typical well-engineered square wave will have spectral content from roughly 0-30,000 Hz, which is still aligned with the higher frequencies found in nature (sferics, whistlers, and tweeks)[1].
[1] A Fourier transform is a mathematical tool that breaks down a signal (like a PEMF signal) from its original time domain into its constituent frequencies. By doing so, it provides a "frequency domain" representation of the signal, revealing both the frequencies present and the amplitude of each frequency component. The amplitude of each frequency indicates how much of a specific frequency is present in the original signal. Interestingly, graphic equalizers on a good stereo roughly break the music down into different frequency bands or domains ranging from low bass to high treble.
When you break a PEMF signal (or any signal) down into ALL its frequency components, it is the higher frequencies in the signal (in significant amplitudes) that contribute to the slew rate (along with the peak intensity). The goal of PEMF is to use intensities and frequencies that are higher, but not too high, as we saw previously in our section on slew rate. Ideally, we want a PEMF signal (when decomposed) to have a frequency spectrum (spectral content or bandwidth) between 0-30,000 Hz, which is close to Nature (along with low to moderate intensities high enough to mimic the body's natural bioelectrical currents)[1]. These are the energies that best invigorate us and promote our health. And it is not just my opinion. Higher radio and microwave frequencies (> 20 MHz) are considered electrosmog and may have deleterious long-term effects, as we will discuss in detail in the next chapter. The art and science of PEMF is creating a high-slew-rate PEMF signal that is in alignment with clinical research (30-120 T/s), but without using frequencies (or intensities) that are too high, which are unhealthy electrosmog.
Based on my extensive research, this can be done using intensities in the 1-10 mT (10 to 100 gauss) range and with fast rise times around 100-500 microseconds (2000 - 20,000 Hz peak frequency). In contrast, you can achieve a high slew rate with lower intensities, but this requires using higher, unnatural frequencies, which is undesirable. On the other end of the intensity spectrum, creating a high-slew-rate with higher intensities and lower frequencies is not only inefficient but also results in excessive magnetic field exposure (over-dosing). This is why the IEC has LOWER slew rate safety levels when higher intensities and slower rise times are used. Plus, most high-intensity systems have slew rates that are too high (if your muscles are twitching, it's too high). Also, every high-intensity PEMF system I have tested has unwanted higher frequencies!
[1] The spectral content in this section and the buyers' guide in general is the magnetic field spectral content unless stated otherwise.
Based on my extensive research, this can be done using intensities in the 1-10 mT (10 to 100 gauss) range and with fast rise times around 100-500 microseconds (2000 - 20,000 Hz peak frequency). In contrast, you can achieve a high slew rate with lower intensities, but this requires using higher, unnatural frequencies, which is undesirable. On the other end of the intensity spectrum, creating a high-slew-rate with higher intensities and lower frequencies is not only inefficient but also results in excessive magnetic field exposure (over-dosing). This is why the IEC has LOWER slew rate safety levels when higher intensities and slower rise times are used. Plus, most high-intensity systems have slew rates that are too high (if your muscles are twitching, it's too high). Also, every high-intensity PEMF system I have tested has unwanted higher frequencies!
[1] The spectral content in this section and the buyers' guide in general is the magnetic field spectral content unless stated otherwise.
The reason you want a broad spectrum of frequencies (or a wide bandwidth) is that every cell has a different resonant frequency, as do most tissues and organs. A high-slew-rate or a good broadband PEMF signal delivers a wide range of resonant frequencies to energize and power all cells, organelles, chemical reactions, tissues, organs, and the organism, as they all have different resonant frequencies, primarily focused around 0-200 Hz <see the chart shown here>. Additionally, since Earth's natural frequencies range from 0 to 30,000 Hz, we ideally want to keep our spectral content within this range.
What that means is that good PEMF devices with a broad spectrum of frequencies are like an energetic multivitamin, charging, healing, and regenerating ALL the body's tissues and cells AT ONCE. Cheaper PEMF Systems and those with only sine waves have both a poor slew rate and a limited frequency spectrum, resulting in inadequate biological effects[1]. The analogy is like taking "just" vitamin A and vitamin D and nothing else vs taking a full spectrum multivitamin with A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, C, E, D, and a full spectrum of minerals, etc.
[1] Sine wave only PEMF signals have little or no harmonics at any appreciable amplitude. Therefore, for all practical purposes sine wave signals has zero bandwidth (or only one frequency). This is why sine waves are like taking only one vitamin (say B-1 versus a broad spectrum multiple vitamin).
What that means is that good PEMF devices with a broad spectrum of frequencies are like an energetic multivitamin, charging, healing, and regenerating ALL the body's tissues and cells AT ONCE. Cheaper PEMF Systems and those with only sine waves have both a poor slew rate and a limited frequency spectrum, resulting in inadequate biological effects[1]. The analogy is like taking "just" vitamin A and vitamin D and nothing else vs taking a full spectrum multivitamin with A, B1, B2, B3, B5, B6, B12, C, E, D, and a full spectrum of minerals, etc.
[1] Sine wave only PEMF signals have little or no harmonics at any appreciable amplitude. Therefore, for all practical purposes sine wave signals has zero bandwidth (or only one frequency). This is why sine waves are like taking only one vitamin (say B-1 versus a broad spectrum multiple vitamin).
Resonance: The Other Way to Transfer Energy Wirelessly with Changing Magnetic Fields
Besides slew rate, frequency resonance is also significant in PEMF, as it enables energy and information transfer even at small amplitudes. While getting a therapeutic slew rate does seem to usually depend on at least a medium amount of intensity (~1-10 mT), resonance can have beneficial biological effects even in the picotesla range, as evidenced by how the Schumann frequencies have biological effects (and are only in the range of 3-10 picotesla) [11,12]! But what is resonance, and how are PEMF therapy devices effective that use lower intensities and rely on resonance only, because many of these devices have measured slew rates <<1 T/s, yet they also seem to work?
At its core, resonance revolves around vibrations. Every object has a characteristic natural frequency at which it vibrates when disturbed. Resonance occurs when an object experiences an oscillating applied or driving force that’s close to its natural or resonant frequencies. If the driving force continues, the object will vibrate with oscillations that become increasingly larger. The oscillations grow larger because this synchronization leads to constructive interference, in which the waves reinforce each other, causing the object to vibrate more intensely.
The resonant frequency is the frequency at which a system naturally vibrates and is primarily determined by its physical properties, such as material composition, shape, size, mass, and stiffness. For example, because lower frequencies have longer wavelengths, the resonant frequencies of larger, longer objects are typically lower, and vice versa. Think longer strings vs shorter stringed instruments (cello vs violin/viola), or larger wind instruments versus smaller (think Tuba versus flute/piccolo), where the longer stringed and larger cavities in instruments have more bass, which are lower resonant frequencies because the standing waves inside longer strings and larger cavities have longer wavelengths (which equate to lower frequencies). The shorter stringed and smaller-winded instruments create shorter standing waves, which equate to a higher frequency or a higher pitch.
Besides slew rate, frequency resonance is also significant in PEMF, as it enables energy and information transfer even at small amplitudes. While getting a therapeutic slew rate does seem to usually depend on at least a medium amount of intensity (~1-10 mT), resonance can have beneficial biological effects even in the picotesla range, as evidenced by how the Schumann frequencies have biological effects (and are only in the range of 3-10 picotesla) [11,12]! But what is resonance, and how are PEMF therapy devices effective that use lower intensities and rely on resonance only, because many of these devices have measured slew rates <<1 T/s, yet they also seem to work?
At its core, resonance revolves around vibrations. Every object has a characteristic natural frequency at which it vibrates when disturbed. Resonance occurs when an object experiences an oscillating applied or driving force that’s close to its natural or resonant frequencies. If the driving force continues, the object will vibrate with oscillations that become increasingly larger. The oscillations grow larger because this synchronization leads to constructive interference, in which the waves reinforce each other, causing the object to vibrate more intensely.
The resonant frequency is the frequency at which a system naturally vibrates and is primarily determined by its physical properties, such as material composition, shape, size, mass, and stiffness. For example, because lower frequencies have longer wavelengths, the resonant frequencies of larger, longer objects are typically lower, and vice versa. Think longer strings vs shorter stringed instruments (cello vs violin/viola), or larger wind instruments versus smaller (think Tuba versus flute/piccolo), where the longer stringed and larger cavities in instruments have more bass, which are lower resonant frequencies because the standing waves inside longer strings and larger cavities have longer wavelengths (which equate to lower frequencies). The shorter stringed and smaller-winded instruments create shorter standing waves, which equate to a higher frequency or a higher pitch.
Resonance tells us that a system's response to a driving force is greatest when the driving frequency equals its natural frequency. A great playground example of this is when you push a kid on a swing by periodically applying a force (the push is the driving force). If you are not paying attention and pushing at your own frequency, you will either slow the kid down or sometimes speed them up. It is BEST to push exactly when the kid is moving away from you. When you do this, you are pushing at the swing's natural or resonance frequency (which all pendulums have - a swing is like a pendulum). For example, suppose the swing has a natural frequency of .3 Hz. In that case, you can achieve the highest height for the kid by pushing every 3.3 seconds, which is the swing's natural frequency in this example (Luckily, swings have friction, so there is usually no need to worry about pushing them too high)! When you push just right, you are pushing at the resonant frequency! In physics, we say resonance occurs when the frequency of the driving force (in this case, your push) equals the natural frequency of the object.
Another good example of resonance is tuning forks. A tuning fork is set into vibration by simply striking it. Doing so, it will vibrate to its natural frequency, which is a single pitch you can hear. If you place an identical tuning fork nearby, you can transmit energy without contact. Since the two tuning forks are identical and have the same resonant frequency, the first tuning fork creates a sound wave, which serves as the "driving force" that causes the second tuning fork to resonate and "ring" at the same pitch or frequency.
Resonance is also very selective. Out of a mixture of vibrations, however complicated, systems with natural or resonant frequencies respond only to those particular frequencies. For example, if you have a table full of tuning forks and strike ONE of them, ONLY the tuning forks with resonant frequencies that MATCH will ring and vibrate.
Another good example of resonance is tuning forks. A tuning fork is set into vibration by simply striking it. Doing so, it will vibrate to its natural frequency, which is a single pitch you can hear. If you place an identical tuning fork nearby, you can transmit energy without contact. Since the two tuning forks are identical and have the same resonant frequency, the first tuning fork creates a sound wave, which serves as the "driving force" that causes the second tuning fork to resonate and "ring" at the same pitch or frequency.
Resonance is also very selective. Out of a mixture of vibrations, however complicated, systems with natural or resonant frequencies respond only to those particular frequencies. For example, if you have a table full of tuning forks and strike ONE of them, ONLY the tuning forks with resonant frequencies that MATCH will ring and vibrate.
Electromagnetic Waves, Radios, and Resonance
Right now, electromagnetic signals from many radio stations fill the room you are currently in, and yet you can listen to the one you want with the help of a radio. The trick is that you can adjust the natural frequency of the electrical circuit in a radio to pick up the signal by turning the dial to match the station of interest. The receiver's natural frequency then matches the radio station's transmission frequency. When the two frequencies match, resonance occurs between the transmission and receiving antennas, as well as between the electronics. Then energy is transferred wirelessly to your car radio, allowing you to listen to our favorite radio station, thanks to resonance!
PEMF is similar but uses a different type of resonance than radio broadcasting electronics and antennas because the fields stay attached to the coils as pure pulsating magnetic fields. In radios and cell phone signals, the energy radiates in all directions; it is incoherent, and therefore, VERY LITTLE ENERGY gets transferred. Yes, with resonance, information can be transmitted many miles away, but energy not so much, or only very little, which is why power companies don't "broadcast" energy to your house; they still use cables.
To effectively utilize resonance to power up your cells with PEMF, we need a better approach than incoherent electromagnetic fields like radio waves, which are not suitable for us anyway because the higher frequencies are more electrosmog.
Right now, electromagnetic signals from many radio stations fill the room you are currently in, and yet you can listen to the one you want with the help of a radio. The trick is that you can adjust the natural frequency of the electrical circuit in a radio to pick up the signal by turning the dial to match the station of interest. The receiver's natural frequency then matches the radio station's transmission frequency. When the two frequencies match, resonance occurs between the transmission and receiving antennas, as well as between the electronics. Then energy is transferred wirelessly to your car radio, allowing you to listen to our favorite radio station, thanks to resonance!
PEMF is similar but uses a different type of resonance than radio broadcasting electronics and antennas because the fields stay attached to the coils as pure pulsating magnetic fields. In radios and cell phone signals, the energy radiates in all directions; it is incoherent, and therefore, VERY LITTLE ENERGY gets transferred. Yes, with resonance, information can be transmitted many miles away, but energy not so much, or only very little, which is why power companies don't "broadcast" energy to your house; they still use cables.
To effectively utilize resonance to power up your cells with PEMF, we need a better approach than incoherent electromagnetic fields like radio waves, which are not suitable for us anyway because the higher frequencies are more electrosmog.
Resonant Coupling in Technology
Enter companies like WiTricity, which developed a magnetic resonance power-based system with the help of MIT science. The science is available, but it is not yet perfected. It works on the principle of Resonant Coupling Circuits, which are directly connected to how PEMF works!
WiTricity has developed systems/devices that use magnetic resonance to couple energy through oscillating coherent magnetic fields. Resonant coupling occurs when the natural frequencies of two systems – a source and a receiver— are approximately the same. This phenomenon is similar to a radio transmitter, except that it involves coherent, closed-loop magnetic fields that transmit energy wirelessly rather than incoherent electromagnetic waves, as in radio waves. It is worth noting that the coils in RIC systems are usually large circular copper coils with a few turns, JUST LIKE PEMF!
Enter companies like WiTricity, which developed a magnetic resonance power-based system with the help of MIT science. The science is available, but it is not yet perfected. It works on the principle of Resonant Coupling Circuits, which are directly connected to how PEMF works!
WiTricity has developed systems/devices that use magnetic resonance to couple energy through oscillating coherent magnetic fields. Resonant coupling occurs when the natural frequencies of two systems – a source and a receiver— are approximately the same. This phenomenon is similar to a radio transmitter, except that it involves coherent, closed-loop magnetic fields that transmit energy wirelessly rather than incoherent electromagnetic waves, as in radio waves. It is worth noting that the coils in RIC systems are usually large circular copper coils with a few turns, JUST LIKE PEMF!
PEMF and Magnetic Resonance
The correlation between resonant coupling circuits and PEMF devices is not just metaphorical; it is the same, as both utilize magnetic resonance or resonant coupling to transfer energy. However, with PEMF, the energy powers up your cells, not an electronic device. Good PEMF devices act like transmitters, using circular loops or coils to wirelessly transmit healing energy. This energy powers up and energizes the tissues and cells that act as receivers (remember that the body is conductive). And because good PEMF devices use frequencies mainly in the 0-300 Hz range, which seem to be the most biologically active, there is a resonant coupling that allows energy to be transferred for health and vitality. Stated another way, when you have two systems resonating at the same frequency like tuning forks, antennas, resonant coupling circuits, or PEMF devices, you can transfer energy and information wirelessly even over GREATER distances, which is why intensity is hardly necessary at all in the resonance approach to PEMF!
The correlation between resonant coupling circuits and PEMF devices is not just metaphorical; it is the same, as both utilize magnetic resonance or resonant coupling to transfer energy. However, with PEMF, the energy powers up your cells, not an electronic device. Good PEMF devices act like transmitters, using circular loops or coils to wirelessly transmit healing energy. This energy powers up and energizes the tissues and cells that act as receivers (remember that the body is conductive). And because good PEMF devices use frequencies mainly in the 0-300 Hz range, which seem to be the most biologically active, there is a resonant coupling that allows energy to be transferred for health and vitality. Stated another way, when you have two systems resonating at the same frequency like tuning forks, antennas, resonant coupling circuits, or PEMF devices, you can transfer energy and information wirelessly even over GREATER distances, which is why intensity is hardly necessary at all in the resonance approach to PEMF!
Putting It All Together - Wireless Power Transfer in PEMF Therapy
Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) is the transfer of electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic energy without the use of wires. There are only two types of WPT that use changing magnetic fields, like in PEMF, to transfer energy wirelessly:
1) The first is Inductive Coupling (defined in PEMF by the slew rate), which we explored in detail earlier. Inductive coupling enables wireless charging of nearby devices (including your body and cells in the case of PEMF), provided a certain Faraday induction intensity and a fast rise time (slew rate) are achieved.
2) The second is Resonant Coupling in PEMF, which uses magnetic resonance to wirelessly transfer energy from the PEMF coils to resonating cells, tissues, and systems in the body. Magnetic resonance has a broader range and therefore requires less intensity; however, the frequencies must be properly tuned and calibrated to resonate with the target tissues in the body.
These are the ONLY two ways non-radiative PEMF can wirelessly transfer energy to the body. Although some companies that utilize radio waves (electromagnetic waves) and other forms of radiation refer to themselves as PEMF, these systems (i.e., PRFs, RIFE, MWOs)[1] are not PEMF in the way I would define it. This now brings us to a precise definition of PEMF therapy.
A Comprehensive Definition of PEMF: Effective PEMF Therapy devices use closed-loop changing magnetic fields to wirelessly transfer energy by either or both inductive coupling (through Faraday's law) and/or resonant coupling (through resonance) between the primary coils in the PEMF mat or applicator and the many conductive pathways (secondary "coils") in the human body. These two pathways transfer healing energy and microcurrents to biochemical reactions, organelles, cells, bodily systems, tissues, organs, and the whole organism, thereby increasing overall bioelectricity, health, vitality, and healing.
[1] PRFs are pulsed radio frequency devices usually using MHz carrier frequencies like 27.12 MHz carrier frequency, which is part of the ISM (industrial, scientific and medical) band defined by the FCC. Rife machines and multiwave oscillators (MWOs) also have high kilohertz and even megahertz radio frequencies that are electromagnetic waves, not closed loop changing magnetic fields which is what I strongly feel defines PEMF. I personally consider these other forms of energy medicine, not PEMF.
Wireless Power Transfer (WPT) is the transfer of electric, magnetic, or electromagnetic energy without the use of wires. There are only two types of WPT that use changing magnetic fields, like in PEMF, to transfer energy wirelessly:
1) The first is Inductive Coupling (defined in PEMF by the slew rate), which we explored in detail earlier. Inductive coupling enables wireless charging of nearby devices (including your body and cells in the case of PEMF), provided a certain Faraday induction intensity and a fast rise time (slew rate) are achieved.
2) The second is Resonant Coupling in PEMF, which uses magnetic resonance to wirelessly transfer energy from the PEMF coils to resonating cells, tissues, and systems in the body. Magnetic resonance has a broader range and therefore requires less intensity; however, the frequencies must be properly tuned and calibrated to resonate with the target tissues in the body.
These are the ONLY two ways non-radiative PEMF can wirelessly transfer energy to the body. Although some companies that utilize radio waves (electromagnetic waves) and other forms of radiation refer to themselves as PEMF, these systems (i.e., PRFs, RIFE, MWOs)[1] are not PEMF in the way I would define it. This now brings us to a precise definition of PEMF therapy.
A Comprehensive Definition of PEMF: Effective PEMF Therapy devices use closed-loop changing magnetic fields to wirelessly transfer energy by either or both inductive coupling (through Faraday's law) and/or resonant coupling (through resonance) between the primary coils in the PEMF mat or applicator and the many conductive pathways (secondary "coils") in the human body. These two pathways transfer healing energy and microcurrents to biochemical reactions, organelles, cells, bodily systems, tissues, organs, and the whole organism, thereby increasing overall bioelectricity, health, vitality, and healing.
[1] PRFs are pulsed radio frequency devices usually using MHz carrier frequencies like 27.12 MHz carrier frequency, which is part of the ISM (industrial, scientific and medical) band defined by the FCC. Rife machines and multiwave oscillators (MWOs) also have high kilohertz and even megahertz radio frequencies that are electromagnetic waves, not closed loop changing magnetic fields which is what I strongly feel defines PEMF. I personally consider these other forms of energy medicine, not PEMF.
Frequency Resonance vs. Induction (Slew Rate) - Which is Better?
While I am aware that low-intensity PEMF using resonance is an effective way to deliver PEMF, I have learned from extensive experience working directly with over 4,000 people over the last 18 years that high-slew-rate PEMF is more effective for pain relief, reducing inflammation, and promoting faster healing and regeneration. I don't mean high intensity; I mean high slew rate, ideally with medium intensity. I discovered this because the MRS 2000/iMRS Prime, which I have worked with for many years, has both a full-body mat with a very low slew rate but lots of resonant frequencies (broad spectral content), and local applicators with a good square wave that has a good slew rate at the surface. Over the years, it became clear that local applicators with a higher slew rate performed best in terms of pain relief, reduced inflammation, and overall healing.
Low-intensity "resonance only" systems can indirectly support healing by helping relax the body and promote wellness and balance. They are suitable for promoting relaxation in stressed individuals and improving sleep in insomniacs. And they can also help promote healing and regeneration, but not as fast or as well as a high-slew-rate signal. In my experience, a higher slew rate is effective for all these purposes, and it's significantly better for pain relief, reducing inflammation, and promoting faster healing compared to low-intensity "resonance only." This is because high-slew-rate signals induce stronger healing microcurrents (in ranges similar to the body's natural bioelectricity) that shut off pain and inflammation, allowing for better, faster healing, as numerous slew-rate and PEMF research studies have shown [1-7].
While I am aware that low-intensity PEMF using resonance is an effective way to deliver PEMF, I have learned from extensive experience working directly with over 4,000 people over the last 18 years that high-slew-rate PEMF is more effective for pain relief, reducing inflammation, and promoting faster healing and regeneration. I don't mean high intensity; I mean high slew rate, ideally with medium intensity. I discovered this because the MRS 2000/iMRS Prime, which I have worked with for many years, has both a full-body mat with a very low slew rate but lots of resonant frequencies (broad spectral content), and local applicators with a good square wave that has a good slew rate at the surface. Over the years, it became clear that local applicators with a higher slew rate performed best in terms of pain relief, reduced inflammation, and overall healing.
Low-intensity "resonance only" systems can indirectly support healing by helping relax the body and promote wellness and balance. They are suitable for promoting relaxation in stressed individuals and improving sleep in insomniacs. And they can also help promote healing and regeneration, but not as fast or as well as a high-slew-rate signal. In my experience, a higher slew rate is effective for all these purposes, and it's significantly better for pain relief, reducing inflammation, and promoting faster healing compared to low-intensity "resonance only." This is because high-slew-rate signals induce stronger healing microcurrents (in ranges similar to the body's natural bioelectricity) that shut off pain and inflammation, allowing for better, faster healing, as numerous slew-rate and PEMF research studies have shown [1-7].
High-Slew-Rate PEMF - The Best of Both Worlds
The beauty of a high-slew-rate PEMF device is that you get the best of both worlds because the sharper the rise in a PEMF signal, the higher the slew rate AND the broader the spectrum of frequencies, which results in better resonance than even "resonance only" PEMF! A good example to help understand why high-slew-rate signals have powerful resonant effects is to imagine having several tuning forks lined up, as <pictured here>. In this analogy, the tuning forks are like your tissues and cells. Having a high slew rate is akin to striking all the tuning forks simultaneously with a long rod. Banging all the tuning forks at the same time will drive oscillations in ALL of them, causing them to vibrate at their natural resonant frequencies.
The low-intensity "resonance only" approach to PEMF is akin to using individual tuning forks to ring each one separately. The problem with low-intensity "resonance only" is that you need to know the precise frequencies to create accurate resonances! And because conditions and people in general are so different, the resonances can vary from disease to disease and even from person to person. Additionally, there is no consensus on the optimal frequencies to use for specific conditions. And even if a low-intensity PEMF system has a broad spectrum of frequencies, it falls short because it cannot generate healing microcurrents strong enough to mimic the amperage of the body's natural bioelectrical currents[1] due to a lack of a high-slew-rate.
Conclusion: Using a high-slew-rate PEMF signal (ie, a fast-changing square wave) gives you the best of both worlds. You achieve a high slew rate that induces healing microcurrents, mimicking the body's bioelectrical healing response, and generates healing microcurrents that shut off pain and inflammation while promoting healing. And with a high-slew-rate, you also get a broad spectrum of frequencies as a result of what is called the Fourier transform, as we discussed earlier. This simply means that the sharper the rise, the broader the frequency spectrum of the signal, as seen on a spectrum analyzer. This broad spectrum of frequencies of a high-slew-rate signal can ALSO utilize the magnetic resonance approach to PEMF therapy. Low-intensity PEMF can only utilize frequency resonance and misses out on the power of a high-slew-rate signal to induce healing microcurrents.
Now it turns out that not all frequencies, as seen on a spectrum analyzer, are beneficial. Specifically, these include 50/60 Hz power frequencies, high-frequency dirty electricity noise, and very high-frequency microwaves (such as those from 5G and Wi-Fi). In the next chapter, we'll look at these unhealthy frequencies you DO NOT WANT in your house, and certainly you don't want a PEMF device (because sadly, many PEMF devices have them!).
[1] Recall from chapter 2 that the body's bioelectrical currents are in the range of 1-100 μA/cm². Research shows this and slightly higher than this, is the ideal range to promote healing. This demands a high-slew-rate medium intensity signal.
The beauty of a high-slew-rate PEMF device is that you get the best of both worlds because the sharper the rise in a PEMF signal, the higher the slew rate AND the broader the spectrum of frequencies, which results in better resonance than even "resonance only" PEMF! A good example to help understand why high-slew-rate signals have powerful resonant effects is to imagine having several tuning forks lined up, as <pictured here>. In this analogy, the tuning forks are like your tissues and cells. Having a high slew rate is akin to striking all the tuning forks simultaneously with a long rod. Banging all the tuning forks at the same time will drive oscillations in ALL of them, causing them to vibrate at their natural resonant frequencies.
The low-intensity "resonance only" approach to PEMF is akin to using individual tuning forks to ring each one separately. The problem with low-intensity "resonance only" is that you need to know the precise frequencies to create accurate resonances! And because conditions and people in general are so different, the resonances can vary from disease to disease and even from person to person. Additionally, there is no consensus on the optimal frequencies to use for specific conditions. And even if a low-intensity PEMF system has a broad spectrum of frequencies, it falls short because it cannot generate healing microcurrents strong enough to mimic the amperage of the body's natural bioelectrical currents[1] due to a lack of a high-slew-rate.
Conclusion: Using a high-slew-rate PEMF signal (ie, a fast-changing square wave) gives you the best of both worlds. You achieve a high slew rate that induces healing microcurrents, mimicking the body's bioelectrical healing response, and generates healing microcurrents that shut off pain and inflammation while promoting healing. And with a high-slew-rate, you also get a broad spectrum of frequencies as a result of what is called the Fourier transform, as we discussed earlier. This simply means that the sharper the rise, the broader the frequency spectrum of the signal, as seen on a spectrum analyzer. This broad spectrum of frequencies of a high-slew-rate signal can ALSO utilize the magnetic resonance approach to PEMF therapy. Low-intensity PEMF can only utilize frequency resonance and misses out on the power of a high-slew-rate signal to induce healing microcurrents.
Now it turns out that not all frequencies, as seen on a spectrum analyzer, are beneficial. Specifically, these include 50/60 Hz power frequencies, high-frequency dirty electricity noise, and very high-frequency microwaves (such as those from 5G and Wi-Fi). In the next chapter, we'll look at these unhealthy frequencies you DO NOT WANT in your house, and certainly you don't want a PEMF device (because sadly, many PEMF devices have them!).
[1] Recall from chapter 2 that the body's bioelectrical currents are in the range of 1-100 μA/cm². Research shows this and slightly higher than this, is the ideal range to promote healing. This demands a high-slew-rate medium intensity signal.
Chapter 8
PEMF vs. EMF
If you could eliminate certain outside frequencies that interfered in our bodies, we would have greater resistance toward disease.
― Nicola Tesla
A question I am sometimes asked is: What is the difference between healthy, healing PEMF and unhealthy, potentially harmful electrosmog or EMF? Where do you draw the line between what is good and what is potentially deleterious? In this chapter, we'll answer that question in detail. We'll first look at harmful EMF, also known as electrosmog (electromagnetic"smog"), and the extensive research showing that excessive exposure is very unhealthy. Then we'll look at the fundamental reasons why good PEMF fields and frequencies differ from EMF/electrosmog. I emphasize good PEMF because, sadly, many PEMF devices on the market have not only low slew rates and poor signals, but also measurable electrosmog and dirty electricity. This section is critical because the last thing you want is a PEMF device with unhealthy 60 Hz frequencies, dirty electricity, or any unwanted high radio frequencies (RF) due to engineering flaws.
What Is Electrosmog, and Why Is It So Bad?
Beginning in the late 1800s with the invention of the telegraph, electricity, and radio, we have been increasingly exposed to unnatural or artificial EMFs or electrosmog. But it's been only in the last 20-30 years that these unnatural EMFs have expanded exponentially due to modern electronics, the wireless revolution, 5G expansion, and a strong push for energy efficiency. Before the mid to late 1800s, the Earth was in a very pristine electromagnetic state, with only the Schumann Resonances, geomagnetic, and lightning sferics/whistlers/tweeks frequencies present, all of which are under 30,000 Hz. There was a significant gap in the spectrum from 30,000 Hz all the way up to the infrared, visible, and UV light from the sun (see image below left)[1].
With the electrification of the world, there has been a very unfortunate "filling in" of the electromagnetic spectrum over the past century and a half with our ever-expanding electrical and telecommunications grid exponentially increasing the amount the electrosmog now present in our environment in the form of electrical power, dirty electricity, military low frequency (HAARP), long wave radio, AM, FM short wave radio, TV, radar, cell phone towers, WIFI, bluetooth, smart meters, etc <see image below right>. And it's only getting worse with the rise of 5G and towers on every corner. According to EMFnews.org, we are exposed to 100 million times more electrosmog than our grandparents!
[1] There are also higher radio frequencies from space but the amplitudes are very very low and usually occur in bursts. Examples are solar flares from the sun, and powerful radio waves emitted in deep space from rapidly spinning neutron stars called pulsars. There is also the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a remenant from the Big Bang, but all these solar and cosmic sources of higher radio wave frequencies are - on the average - very low intensities.
PEMF vs. EMF
If you could eliminate certain outside frequencies that interfered in our bodies, we would have greater resistance toward disease.
― Nicola Tesla
A question I am sometimes asked is: What is the difference between healthy, healing PEMF and unhealthy, potentially harmful electrosmog or EMF? Where do you draw the line between what is good and what is potentially deleterious? In this chapter, we'll answer that question in detail. We'll first look at harmful EMF, also known as electrosmog (electromagnetic"smog"), and the extensive research showing that excessive exposure is very unhealthy. Then we'll look at the fundamental reasons why good PEMF fields and frequencies differ from EMF/electrosmog. I emphasize good PEMF because, sadly, many PEMF devices on the market have not only low slew rates and poor signals, but also measurable electrosmog and dirty electricity. This section is critical because the last thing you want is a PEMF device with unhealthy 60 Hz frequencies, dirty electricity, or any unwanted high radio frequencies (RF) due to engineering flaws.
What Is Electrosmog, and Why Is It So Bad?
Beginning in the late 1800s with the invention of the telegraph, electricity, and radio, we have been increasingly exposed to unnatural or artificial EMFs or electrosmog. But it's been only in the last 20-30 years that these unnatural EMFs have expanded exponentially due to modern electronics, the wireless revolution, 5G expansion, and a strong push for energy efficiency. Before the mid to late 1800s, the Earth was in a very pristine electromagnetic state, with only the Schumann Resonances, geomagnetic, and lightning sferics/whistlers/tweeks frequencies present, all of which are under 30,000 Hz. There was a significant gap in the spectrum from 30,000 Hz all the way up to the infrared, visible, and UV light from the sun (see image below left)[1].
With the electrification of the world, there has been a very unfortunate "filling in" of the electromagnetic spectrum over the past century and a half with our ever-expanding electrical and telecommunications grid exponentially increasing the amount the electrosmog now present in our environment in the form of electrical power, dirty electricity, military low frequency (HAARP), long wave radio, AM, FM short wave radio, TV, radar, cell phone towers, WIFI, bluetooth, smart meters, etc <see image below right>. And it's only getting worse with the rise of 5G and towers on every corner. According to EMFnews.org, we are exposed to 100 million times more electrosmog than our grandparents!
[1] There are also higher radio frequencies from space but the amplitudes are very very low and usually occur in bursts. Examples are solar flares from the sun, and powerful radio waves emitted in deep space from rapidly spinning neutron stars called pulsars. There is also the cosmic microwave background radiation, which is a remenant from the Big Bang, but all these solar and cosmic sources of higher radio wave frequencies are - on the average - very low intensities.
|
|
There is overwhelming evidence over the past few decades of the harmful effects of all forms of EMF, or electrosmog. Many of us are now aware that excessive exposure to cell phones, 5G, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, high-powered appliances, electric blankets, and other devices can be harmful and possibly even carcinogenic. But this is not just heresy. There are now hundreds of studies showing EMF exposure causes neuropsychiatric symptoms, including difficulty sleeping, depression, anxiety, fatigue, and difficulty concentrating. Even worse, recent research has shown other potentially more dangerous effects of EMF exposure, including oxidative damage and premature aging of our cells, DNA breakage, and even cancer. Even though these frequencies are still considered "non-ionizing", they still have harmful effects. One of the dogmas of medicine is that only ionizing radiation, such as X-rays and gamma rays (i.e., radioactivity), can cause damage, or the thermal or heating effects from excessive radio/microwave frequencies. The FCC uses specific absorption rate (SAR) to determine safety levels with phones. Still, it sets safety limits that are way too high, because studies have shown that radio and microwave frequencies (5G, Wi-Fi, dirty electricity, 50/60 Hz, etc.) pose non-thermal dangers. That is, the harm happens BEFORE the tissue heats up, making the safety levels much higher than they should be.
3 Main Categories of Electrosmog or EMF Pollution You Want to Avoid or Minimize as Much as Possible
1) 60 Hz Power frequency electric and magnetic fields from AC electricity
2) Dirty Electricity (200Hz to 10MHz) - spikes of electromagnetic energy that travel along power lines and wires where clean conventional AC electricity should be.
3) High-frequency radio and microwave radiation (>20-100 MHz), mostly from wireless technologies.
3 Main Categories of Electrosmog or EMF Pollution You Want to Avoid or Minimize as Much as Possible
1) 60 Hz Power frequency electric and magnetic fields from AC electricity
2) Dirty Electricity (200Hz to 10MHz) - spikes of electromagnetic energy that travel along power lines and wires where clean conventional AC electricity should be.
3) High-frequency radio and microwave radiation (>20-100 MHz), mostly from wireless technologies.
1) 60 Hz Electric and Magnetic Fields are Unhealthy
Approximately 40 countries use 60 Hz for their electricity grids, including the United States, Canada, most of the Americas, and select countries in Asia and Africa. The remainder of the world primarily uses 50 Hz, which also presents health concerns. The 60 Hz frequency powers lighting, heating, air conditioning, and household appliances. Even when the frequency is pure, exposure to 60 Hz power fields has been associated with adverse health effects. These fields, which surround power lines, outlets, and appliances, consist of both electric and magnetic components. Elevated or prolonged exposure to either component may pose health risks.
Connecting any appliance or electrical device to an outlet generates 60 Hz electric fields in the surrounding environment. The higher the voltage, the stronger the electric field produced. Since voltage can exist even when no current is flowing, the appliance does not have to be on for an electric field to exist (this includes PEMF devices, many of which I have tested and found to have unhealthy electric fields even when turned off!). A little trick to reduce these unsavory electric fields in your house is to UNPLUG appliances you are not using. Also, 60 Hz magnetic fields arise from the flowing of currents in the wires in your home (Ampère's law) and exist as soon as a device is turned on. Both electric and magnetic fields coexist in the environment, and their intensity increases with higher current or voltage. Common sources of elevated electric and magnetic fields include power lines, transformers, motors, electrical alarm clocks, hair dryers, high-powered appliances, and electric vehicle chargers.
Research Shows That 50-60 Hz Is Potentially Harmful
In 1979, long before smartphones or cell towers began exposing us to RF radiation, researchers were establishing a link between high levels of 60 Hz Magnetic Fields (MF) from standard household wiring or high-voltage power lines and childhood leukemia. [1-11]. In 2002, this caused the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) within the World Health Organization to classify 50-60 Hz magnetic fields with a Class 2B category as "possible" carcinogens [12]. Other studies show the connection between 60 Hz and fibrillation [13], DNA damage [14], and just an overall detriment to physical and psychological health [15-17].
60 Hz Suppresses Melatonin
One more example of the research-proven adverse effects of 60 Hz is the studies showing that 60 Hz suppresses melatonin [18-21], which is not only necessary for rejuvenating sleep but is also oncostatic. That is, melatonin protects you from cancer, so anything that disrupts melatonin, like 60 Hz fields (another example is blue light/bright light at night), increases your risk of cancer. Additionally, melatonin is a master cellular antioxidant at the cellular level.
As we'll see next, the 60 Hz signal from the power company is not a pure 60 Hz signal but rather "dirty," contaminated with noise or interference, meaning many higher frequencies piggyback on the 60 Hz. This dirty electricity can be a contributing source of many chronic illnesses, making the already unhealthy 60 Hz even worse.
Approximately 40 countries use 60 Hz for their electricity grids, including the United States, Canada, most of the Americas, and select countries in Asia and Africa. The remainder of the world primarily uses 50 Hz, which also presents health concerns. The 60 Hz frequency powers lighting, heating, air conditioning, and household appliances. Even when the frequency is pure, exposure to 60 Hz power fields has been associated with adverse health effects. These fields, which surround power lines, outlets, and appliances, consist of both electric and magnetic components. Elevated or prolonged exposure to either component may pose health risks.
Connecting any appliance or electrical device to an outlet generates 60 Hz electric fields in the surrounding environment. The higher the voltage, the stronger the electric field produced. Since voltage can exist even when no current is flowing, the appliance does not have to be on for an electric field to exist (this includes PEMF devices, many of which I have tested and found to have unhealthy electric fields even when turned off!). A little trick to reduce these unsavory electric fields in your house is to UNPLUG appliances you are not using. Also, 60 Hz magnetic fields arise from the flowing of currents in the wires in your home (Ampère's law) and exist as soon as a device is turned on. Both electric and magnetic fields coexist in the environment, and their intensity increases with higher current or voltage. Common sources of elevated electric and magnetic fields include power lines, transformers, motors, electrical alarm clocks, hair dryers, high-powered appliances, and electric vehicle chargers.
Research Shows That 50-60 Hz Is Potentially Harmful
In 1979, long before smartphones or cell towers began exposing us to RF radiation, researchers were establishing a link between high levels of 60 Hz Magnetic Fields (MF) from standard household wiring or high-voltage power lines and childhood leukemia. [1-11]. In 2002, this caused the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) within the World Health Organization to classify 50-60 Hz magnetic fields with a Class 2B category as "possible" carcinogens [12]. Other studies show the connection between 60 Hz and fibrillation [13], DNA damage [14], and just an overall detriment to physical and psychological health [15-17].
60 Hz Suppresses Melatonin
One more example of the research-proven adverse effects of 60 Hz is the studies showing that 60 Hz suppresses melatonin [18-21], which is not only necessary for rejuvenating sleep but is also oncostatic. That is, melatonin protects you from cancer, so anything that disrupts melatonin, like 60 Hz fields (another example is blue light/bright light at night), increases your risk of cancer. Additionally, melatonin is a master cellular antioxidant at the cellular level.
As we'll see next, the 60 Hz signal from the power company is not a pure 60 Hz signal but rather "dirty," contaminated with noise or interference, meaning many higher frequencies piggyback on the 60 Hz. This dirty electricity can be a contributing source of many chronic illnesses, making the already unhealthy 60 Hz even worse.
2) Dirty Electricity[1] (100 Hz - 5Mhz) Is Unhealthy
Since the oil embargo in 1972 and subsequent changes in energy usage patterns, there has been a shift toward more energy-efficient devices. Many of these devices use pulsed power and various forms of switching power supplies, which draw current in short pulses rather than continuously. This process generates high-frequency transient spikes and harmonics. AC-to-DC converters and similar devices also contribute to the production of dirty electricity. Such dirty electricity is now widespread due to the prevalence of modern dimmer switches, energy-efficient lightbulbs, appliances, and electronic devices, including televisions, solar panels, electric vehicle chargers, computers, printers, and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices. These dirty electricity signals are parasitic oscillations that overlay the standard 60 Hz power and radiate electromagnetic fields through household wiring, potentially exposing occupants to frequencies ranging from 200–300 Hz up to 5–10 MHz.
[1] Dirty electricity is also known as "dirty power", "electrical noise", "line noise", "EMI" (electromagnetic interference), "Power Line EMI", "Voltage Transients and Harmonics", and "Microsurge Electrical Pollution".
Since the oil embargo in 1972 and subsequent changes in energy usage patterns, there has been a shift toward more energy-efficient devices. Many of these devices use pulsed power and various forms of switching power supplies, which draw current in short pulses rather than continuously. This process generates high-frequency transient spikes and harmonics. AC-to-DC converters and similar devices also contribute to the production of dirty electricity. Such dirty electricity is now widespread due to the prevalence of modern dimmer switches, energy-efficient lightbulbs, appliances, and electronic devices, including televisions, solar panels, electric vehicle chargers, computers, printers, and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) devices. These dirty electricity signals are parasitic oscillations that overlay the standard 60 Hz power and radiate electromagnetic fields through household wiring, potentially exposing occupants to frequencies ranging from 200–300 Hz up to 5–10 MHz.
[1] Dirty electricity is also known as "dirty power", "electrical noise", "line noise", "EMI" (electromagnetic interference), "Power Line EMI", "Voltage Transients and Harmonics", and "Microsurge Electrical Pollution".
|
|
|
After these devices generate dirty electricity, it propagates in two primary ways: directly from the devices themselves and through the wiring in walls, ceilings, floors, and power cords connected to outlets. As a result, potentially harmful electromagnetic fields (EMFs) are emitted into occupied spaces. The exposure risk increases when individuals use electrical items that make direct contact with the body, such as electric blankets and improperly engineered PEMF devices.
Both scientific and anecdotal evidence suggest associations between dirty electricity and a range of adverse health outcomes. These include, but are not limited to, electrohypersensitivity [22-24], cancer among utility workers [25], cancer and leukemia [26-30], cancer in teachers [31,32], disease epidemics in the twentieth century [33], neoplasia[1] [34], chronic stress [35], obesity [36], diabetes [29,30,36-38], asthma [39], childhood obesity [40], ill health near wind turbines [41], student behavioral issues [42,43], M.S. (multiple sclerosis) [37], cardiovascular disease [30,44] cellular imbalance [45], affects cows/animals adversely [46-48], and other general adverse health effects [49-54].
A $25 million study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) investigated the effects of exposing rats and mice to cellphone radiation levels comparable to those experienced by humans using a cellphone for 30 minutes daily over 36 years [55]. According to Microwave News: "The exposed rats were found to have higher rates of two types of cancers: glioma, a tumor of the glial cells in the brain, and malignant schwannoma of the heart, a sporadic tumor. None of the unexposed control rats developed either type of tumor"[71]. This study was the first to identify potential links between cell phone exposure and cancer in rats, and researchers controlled for the heating effect by ensuring the rats' body temperature did not increase by more than 1 °C. These findings indicate that non-ionizing, non-heating EMFs may increase cancer risks in rats. Notably, John Bucher, the senior manager of the NTP study, initially intended to demonstrate that cellphones do not cause cancer [55].
[1] Abnormal growth of cells which can be either benign or cancerous.
Both scientific and anecdotal evidence suggest associations between dirty electricity and a range of adverse health outcomes. These include, but are not limited to, electrohypersensitivity [22-24], cancer among utility workers [25], cancer and leukemia [26-30], cancer in teachers [31,32], disease epidemics in the twentieth century [33], neoplasia[1] [34], chronic stress [35], obesity [36], diabetes [29,30,36-38], asthma [39], childhood obesity [40], ill health near wind turbines [41], student behavioral issues [42,43], M.S. (multiple sclerosis) [37], cardiovascular disease [30,44] cellular imbalance [45], affects cows/animals adversely [46-48], and other general adverse health effects [49-54].
A $25 million study by the US National Toxicology Program (NTP) investigated the effects of exposing rats and mice to cellphone radiation levels comparable to those experienced by humans using a cellphone for 30 minutes daily over 36 years [55]. According to Microwave News: "The exposed rats were found to have higher rates of two types of cancers: glioma, a tumor of the glial cells in the brain, and malignant schwannoma of the heart, a sporadic tumor. None of the unexposed control rats developed either type of tumor"[71]. This study was the first to identify potential links between cell phone exposure and cancer in rats, and researchers controlled for the heating effect by ensuring the rats' body temperature did not increase by more than 1 °C. These findings indicate that non-ionizing, non-heating EMFs may increase cancer risks in rats. Notably, John Bucher, the senior manager of the NTP study, initially intended to demonstrate that cellphones do not cause cancer [55].
[1] Abnormal growth of cells which can be either benign or cancerous.
3) High Frequencies (Radio and Microwave) Are Unhealthy (>20 MHz)
The third electrosmog category, and most notorious, relates to high-frequency radio and microwave radiation. Microwave and Radio Frequency (RF) fields are high-frequency radiated fields emitted by wireless communication systems. In the digital age, it is almost impossible in Western civilization to avoid these radio and microwave frequencies, as our modern lifestyle depends on them. These microwave frequencies (the worst of which are 5G, which range up to 100 GHz) are emitted by radio and TV stations, cellphones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, and radar. The highest exposure comes from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and Bluetooth.
Chronic exposure to high-frequency radio and microwave signals, particularly ultra-high-frequency 5G, has been associated with a spectrum of health concerns, ranging from headaches and dermatological conditions to more severe outcomes such as cellular damage and cancer. A study conducted by the National Toxicology Program demonstrated that high levels of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation induced heart, brain, and adrenal gland tumors in male rats. Despite these findings, telecommunications companies continue to assert the safety of 5G and wireless microwave radiation, although a substantial body of research challenges these claims.
The third electrosmog category, and most notorious, relates to high-frequency radio and microwave radiation. Microwave and Radio Frequency (RF) fields are high-frequency radiated fields emitted by wireless communication systems. In the digital age, it is almost impossible in Western civilization to avoid these radio and microwave frequencies, as our modern lifestyle depends on them. These microwave frequencies (the worst of which are 5G, which range up to 100 GHz) are emitted by radio and TV stations, cellphones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, Bluetooth, smart meters, and radar. The highest exposure comes from cell phones, cell towers, Wi-Fi, smart meters, and Bluetooth.
Chronic exposure to high-frequency radio and microwave signals, particularly ultra-high-frequency 5G, has been associated with a spectrum of health concerns, ranging from headaches and dermatological conditions to more severe outcomes such as cellular damage and cancer. A study conducted by the National Toxicology Program demonstrated that high levels of electromagnetic field (EMF) radiation induced heart, brain, and adrenal gland tumors in male rats. Despite these findings, telecommunications companies continue to assert the safety of 5G and wireless microwave radiation, although a substantial body of research challenges these claims.
IARC Class 2B "Possible" Carcinogens
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified EMFs as a class 2B "possible" carcinogen." [56]. Then, somewhere in the last years, they edited the entire discourse on their website from "EMFS might cause cancer" to just "cell phone radiation might cause cancer"[57]. This is very strange. Why would they do this? Either way, this puts EMFs or RF radiation from cellphones in the same category as DDT (a pesticide banned since 1972 [58]), lead, and diesel fuel. But this IARC classification was not a fluke, and the results of the NTP study above really show that just 30 minutes of cell phone use per day for 36 years can significantly increase your risks of glioma (a kind of brain tumor) and schwannoma (a rare kind of heart tumor) [59]. Further studies show increased risks of Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbances, reduction in melatonin, DNA damage, infertility, decreased sperm motility, blood-brain barrier disruption, and increased electrohypersensitivity [60-64].
Important Note: Several PEMF devices I have tested have relatively high or high levels of RF frequencies of >20 MHz. With a simple Trifield meter or Cornet meter, you can test devices for yourself to see if they are high in RF (use the RF setting)!
In 2011, the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) of the World Health Organization classified EMFs as a class 2B "possible" carcinogen." [56]. Then, somewhere in the last years, they edited the entire discourse on their website from "EMFS might cause cancer" to just "cell phone radiation might cause cancer"[57]. This is very strange. Why would they do this? Either way, this puts EMFs or RF radiation from cellphones in the same category as DDT (a pesticide banned since 1972 [58]), lead, and diesel fuel. But this IARC classification was not a fluke, and the results of the NTP study above really show that just 30 minutes of cell phone use per day for 36 years can significantly increase your risks of glioma (a kind of brain tumor) and schwannoma (a rare kind of heart tumor) [59]. Further studies show increased risks of Alzheimer's disease, cognitive impairment, sleep disturbances, reduction in melatonin, DNA damage, infertility, decreased sperm motility, blood-brain barrier disruption, and increased electrohypersensitivity [60-64].
Important Note: Several PEMF devices I have tested have relatively high or high levels of RF frequencies of >20 MHz. With a simple Trifield meter or Cornet meter, you can test devices for yourself to see if they are high in RF (use the RF setting)!
PEMF vs. EMF
Now that we have seen the harmful and potentially harmful effects of all forms of electrosmog, let us examine how PEMF fundamentally differs in its healing effects. Harmful EMFs can negatively affect the body’s natural functions while therapeutic PEMFs act in supportive ways, enhancing cellular energy and overall health. Good PEMF devices protect and restore the body from the effects of harmful EMFs by increasing cellular antioxidants [65-69], making your cells, tissues, organs, and body stronger and more resilient. I tell people PEMF is an antidote or remedy to electrosmog.
Healthy PEMFs Protect You from EMF/Electrosmog
Dr. Magda Havas, a worldwide expert on electrosmog, was initially skeptical of PEMF. She had heard that one claim made by those who sell PEMF is that this technology improves blood circulation by preventing blood cells from sticking together. She wanted to put this claim to the test, and so she did a live blood analysis test after working on a computer all day, and sure enough, her red blood cells were clumping together (a phenomenon called the Rouleaux effect). Dr. Havas then tested her blood after using a quality PEMF mat for only 8 minutes at low intensity and found, to her surprise, that her blood cells looked much healthier. They were no longer sticking together (See slides 1 and 2 that she shared). Dr. Havas subsequently repeated the experiment several times and obtained virtually identical results, which sparked her interest in PEMF. So much so that she not only became a believer in PEMF as "Good EMF," but was also featured in a PEMF documentary exploring its benefits, and traveled through Europe to visit many PEMF manufacturers. She has been a vocal proponent of PEMF ever since [70].
Now that we have seen the harmful and potentially harmful effects of all forms of electrosmog, let us examine how PEMF fundamentally differs in its healing effects. Harmful EMFs can negatively affect the body’s natural functions while therapeutic PEMFs act in supportive ways, enhancing cellular energy and overall health. Good PEMF devices protect and restore the body from the effects of harmful EMFs by increasing cellular antioxidants [65-69], making your cells, tissues, organs, and body stronger and more resilient. I tell people PEMF is an antidote or remedy to electrosmog.
Healthy PEMFs Protect You from EMF/Electrosmog
Dr. Magda Havas, a worldwide expert on electrosmog, was initially skeptical of PEMF. She had heard that one claim made by those who sell PEMF is that this technology improves blood circulation by preventing blood cells from sticking together. She wanted to put this claim to the test, and so she did a live blood analysis test after working on a computer all day, and sure enough, her red blood cells were clumping together (a phenomenon called the Rouleaux effect). Dr. Havas then tested her blood after using a quality PEMF mat for only 8 minutes at low intensity and found, to her surprise, that her blood cells looked much healthier. They were no longer sticking together (See slides 1 and 2 that she shared). Dr. Havas subsequently repeated the experiment several times and obtained virtually identical results, which sparked her interest in PEMF. So much so that she not only became a believer in PEMF as "Good EMF," but was also featured in a PEMF documentary exploring its benefits, and traveled through Europe to visit many PEMF manufacturers. She has been a vocal proponent of PEMF ever since [70].
The Science Behind the Differences Between EMF and PEMF
The energy and frequencies in good PEMF devices are qualitatively different from those in electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or electromagnetic waves, in that they are closed-loop frequencies that do not have a wavelength (although they do have a frequency). The energy stored around high-quality PEMF coils is magnetic in nature and nearly identical to a pure magnetic field around magnets, except that the field is vibrating or changing over time. In contrast, magnets produce static, or unchanging, magnetic fields. Also, like static magnets, good PEMF devices have very coherent fields, with the field lines approximately pointing in the same direction in the middle of the coil.
Harmful EMFs are radiating and incoherent (all directions) electromagnetic waves of various unnatural frequencies. EMFs have a wavelength given by λ = c/v because they radiate away from the source antenna and travel through space. Good PEMFs stay attached to the coils/loops so they do not radiate away and therefore effectively have no wavelength. While some electromagnetic waves are such as infrared, visible light, UV in moderation (for Vitamin D), Schumann resonances and other frequencies around lightning ARE natural, healthy and essential for health, artificial electromagnetic frequencies around 60 Hz, dirty electricity, cell phones, Wi-Fi, radio, radar, etc. are NOT healthy and potentially carcinogenic as much research has shown [1-65].
The Parameters of a GOOD and SAFE PEMF Device
Ideally, you want a PEMF device that not only has a high slew rate but also has a lower-frequency spectrum <100,000 Hz and induces energy aligned with the body's natural bioelectrical currents. As we mentioned, this usually translates to a medium Intensity of 1-10 mT or 10-100 gauss (depending on the slew rate). The problem with using too low an intensity is that higher frequencies are required to compensate and achieve a reasonable slew rate. For example, one device I tested was only 5 μT (0.05 gauss) but still achieved a decent slew rate because it uses a 27 MHz carrier frequency (27 million Hz). However, since that radio frequency is not natural, using a low-intensity, high-frequency approach to achieve a reasonable slew rate is not recommended. As we discussed earlier, the highest frequencies in the spectral content contribute to the rise time. Slew rate is dB/dt, so if you have a lower intensity ("B"), you need a faster rise time ("t"), which requires higher frequencies, which are usually electrosmog.
The energy and frequencies in good PEMF devices are qualitatively different from those in electromagnetic fields (EMFs) or electromagnetic waves, in that they are closed-loop frequencies that do not have a wavelength (although they do have a frequency). The energy stored around high-quality PEMF coils is magnetic in nature and nearly identical to a pure magnetic field around magnets, except that the field is vibrating or changing over time. In contrast, magnets produce static, or unchanging, magnetic fields. Also, like static magnets, good PEMF devices have very coherent fields, with the field lines approximately pointing in the same direction in the middle of the coil.
Harmful EMFs are radiating and incoherent (all directions) electromagnetic waves of various unnatural frequencies. EMFs have a wavelength given by λ = c/v because they radiate away from the source antenna and travel through space. Good PEMFs stay attached to the coils/loops so they do not radiate away and therefore effectively have no wavelength. While some electromagnetic waves are such as infrared, visible light, UV in moderation (for Vitamin D), Schumann resonances and other frequencies around lightning ARE natural, healthy and essential for health, artificial electromagnetic frequencies around 60 Hz, dirty electricity, cell phones, Wi-Fi, radio, radar, etc. are NOT healthy and potentially carcinogenic as much research has shown [1-65].
The Parameters of a GOOD and SAFE PEMF Device
Ideally, you want a PEMF device that not only has a high slew rate but also has a lower-frequency spectrum <100,000 Hz and induces energy aligned with the body's natural bioelectrical currents. As we mentioned, this usually translates to a medium Intensity of 1-10 mT or 10-100 gauss (depending on the slew rate). The problem with using too low an intensity is that higher frequencies are required to compensate and achieve a reasonable slew rate. For example, one device I tested was only 5 μT (0.05 gauss) but still achieved a decent slew rate because it uses a 27 MHz carrier frequency (27 million Hz). However, since that radio frequency is not natural, using a low-intensity, high-frequency approach to achieve a reasonable slew rate is not recommended. As we discussed earlier, the highest frequencies in the spectral content contribute to the rise time. Slew rate is dB/dt, so if you have a lower intensity ("B"), you need a faster rise time ("t"), which requires higher frequencies, which are usually electrosmog.
When PEMF Can Have Potentially Harmful Levels of EMF/Electrosmog
As we discussed regarding slew rate, it is the changing magnetic field that induces healing energy and microcurrents in the body. While PEMF is generally a clean, healthy, and therapeutic form of energy medicine (one of the best), many PEMF devices on the market emit measurable electrosmog, making it essential to be aware of this when shopping for a PEMF device. That is, many PEMF devices on the market have intensities or frequencies so high that they DO start to radiate unfavorable high-frequency electromagnetic waves (or they exhibit measurable 60 Hz and/or dirty electricity). This is why you want to keep the intensities and frequencies close to what nature is providing so you can get the most coherent, pure, and healing PEMF possible!
EMF radiation is governed by the radiation formula <shown above>, which is especially sensitive to high frequencies (ω) because it is a fourth power (ω⁴), but too high an intensity or amplitude will also create radiation (mₒ²). Especially bad are most high-intensity devices that combine high intensity and high frequency, which will undoubtedly create incoherent radiating fields. A good way to think of this is that healthy and coherent PEMFs (lower frequency and intensity) are like a soap bubble that stays ATTACHED to the ring (non-radiating). In contrast, high-frequency and/or high-intensity PEMF will start to create radiating fields, similar to a bubble that detaches and radiates, or "flies" away. Remember that good PEMFs are closed-loop, changing magnetic fields that do not radiate away. We want the magnetic field to stay attached to the coil like a soap bubble that is blown very gently onto the bubble ring, so it vibrates and fills out into a hemisphere while still staying attached to the loop.
As we discussed regarding slew rate, it is the changing magnetic field that induces healing energy and microcurrents in the body. While PEMF is generally a clean, healthy, and therapeutic form of energy medicine (one of the best), many PEMF devices on the market emit measurable electrosmog, making it essential to be aware of this when shopping for a PEMF device. That is, many PEMF devices on the market have intensities or frequencies so high that they DO start to radiate unfavorable high-frequency electromagnetic waves (or they exhibit measurable 60 Hz and/or dirty electricity). This is why you want to keep the intensities and frequencies close to what nature is providing so you can get the most coherent, pure, and healing PEMF possible!
EMF radiation is governed by the radiation formula <shown above>, which is especially sensitive to high frequencies (ω) because it is a fourth power (ω⁴), but too high an intensity or amplitude will also create radiation (mₒ²). Especially bad are most high-intensity devices that combine high intensity and high frequency, which will undoubtedly create incoherent radiating fields. A good way to think of this is that healthy and coherent PEMFs (lower frequency and intensity) are like a soap bubble that stays ATTACHED to the ring (non-radiating). In contrast, high-frequency and/or high-intensity PEMF will start to create radiating fields, similar to a bubble that detaches and radiates, or "flies" away. Remember that good PEMFs are closed-loop, changing magnetic fields that do not radiate away. We want the magnetic field to stay attached to the coil like a soap bubble that is blown very gently onto the bubble ring, so it vibrates and fills out into a hemisphere while still staying attached to the loop.
|
|
15 Steps to Minimize Harmful Electrosmog in Your Life
I compiled a reading list of what I feel are the best books on all these forms of EMF pollution, their harmful effects, and further tips and suggestions on what you can do to protect yourself:
- Get rid of cordless phones - use wired or corded phones in your house (if you still have a landline that is).
- Minimize cell phone use and maintain airport mode whenever possible. Get a cellphone stand so you do not have to touch it and use SPEAKERPHONE.
- Minimize using iPads, as they require Wi-Fi and are really, really touch-focused. Plus, if you are honest with yourself, it is probably a time-waster anyway. Do your work on an Ethernet-connected computer.
- Turn Wi-Fi off and use an Ethernet cable that plugs directly into your computer. If this is not possible, make sure your Wi-Fi is far removed from your living area.
- Get rid of ALL compact fluorescent light (CFL) bulbs and replace them with incandescent (full spectrum if possible). Minimize bright/blue light at night.
- Avoid high-EMF appliances as much as possible and keep a safe distance from them (hairdryers, microwaves, plasma TVs, etc.).
- Do not use cordless baby monitors; safer “on demand” or corded alternatives are available.
- Avoid waterbeds, electric blankets, electric heating pads, and alarm clocks.
- Try NOT to live near cell phone towers or high voltage power lines. (Do not live in a home within 100 m of transmission lines or within 400 m of cell phone antennas).
- Opt out of smart meter installation. You may have to pay a penalty, but it is worth it.
- Keep alarm clock radios (including your cellphone) at least 2 meters from bed.
- Measure radio frequency in your home & install radio frequency-reflecting window film or fabric to shield from external sources.
- Measure dirty electricity in your home & install filters if values are above 50 GS units.
- Spend more time outdoors away from tech.
- Invest in an earth-based PEMF device and spend more time outdoors (barefoot is possible)!
I compiled a reading list of what I feel are the best books on all these forms of EMF pollution, their harmful effects, and further tips and suggestions on what you can do to protect yourself:
- Firstenberg, Arthur. The Invisible Rainbow: A History of Electricity and Life. Chelsea Green Publishing. March 9, 2020
- Milham, Samuel. Dirty Electricity: Electrification and the Diseases of Civilization (2nd Edition). iUniverse Star. July 16, 2010
- Debaun, Ryan. Radiation Nation: Complete Guide to EMF Protection & Safety - The Proven Health Risks of EMF Radiation & What You Can Do to Protect Yourself & Family. Icaro Publishing. March 20, 2017
- Mercola, Joseph. EMF*D: 5G, Wi-Fi & Cell Phones: Hidden Harms and How to Protect Yourself. Hay House LLC; Reprint edition (October 12, 2021)
- Pineault, Nicolas. The Non-Tinfoil Guide to EMFs: How to Fix Our Stupid Use of Technology. N & G Media (2019).
- Davis, Devra. Disconnect: The Truth about Cell Phone Radiation, What the Industry has Done to Hide It, and How to Protect Your Family. Dutton; American First edition (September 23, 2010)
- Blank, Martin. Overpowered: The Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) and What You Can Do about It. Seven Stories Press; Illustrated edition (September 29, 2015)
- Rea, William. EMF Effects from Power Sources and Electrosmog (Electromagnetic Frequency Sensitivities). CRC Press; 1st edition (June 13, 2022)
- Havas, M. and Rees, C. Public Health SOS: The Shadow Side Of The Wireless Revolution. CreateSpace Independent Publishing Platform (2009). www.magdahavas.com deals primarily with electromagnetic issues intended for a general audience.
- Reilly, J.P. 1992. Applied Bioelectricity: From Electrical Stimulation to Electropathology, Cambridge University Press.
Chapter 9:
Engineering a Quality High-Slew-Rate PEMF Device
Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution.
― William A. Foster
Over the past year and a half, I have not only conducted a comprehensive review of PEMF research studies but also gained a deeper understanding of the engineering aspects of PEMF, which form the basis of this book. As I mentioned earlier, the shift for me began in early 2024, when I received a call from David, a gifted engineer who had developed a high-slew-rate PEMF device using ingenious electronics and a unique coil design that enabled high-slew-rate coverage over a large area with deep penetration (and minimal electrosmog). The quote introducing this chapter truly encapsulates David's pursuit of excellence in PEMF.
In this section, we will review all the best engineering design strategies for making a high-slew-rate PEMF device. Although I hold a Master's Degree in physics and have taught physics at the college level for five years at Central Michigan and a couple of community colleges, it has taken me quite a while and many conversations with David to truly understand the hands-on engineering involved in building a high-slew-rate PEMF device and exactly what needs to be done to do it well. I was motivated to write this chapter because I wanted to share the engineering side of PEMF, which is rarely discussed in the PEMF industry. The second reason is that, having tested dozens of PEMF mats (and had David test several PEMF devices as well for confirmation), it is clear that many, if not most PEMF companies have flaws in their engineering. And thirdly, it is such an interesting topic for me that I felt strongly motivated to share it all. Now, let's get started!
To accomplish the goal of creating an effective AND safe PEMF signal, one needs to understand BOTH PEMF science/research AND electrical engineering well enough to adjust all the below parameters very carefully. It is essential to properly tune the PEMF controller/driver with all the coils and connecting cables in a way that gives a high research-backed slew rate signal with a large area of coverage, a deep penetration, and a minimal amount of electrosmog (60 Hz, dirty electricity, and other unhealthy higher frequencies). David told me that you can think of these nine parameters like little knobs that ALL must be dialed in "just right" to yield the best possible PEMF signal:
1) Inductance (L)[1]
2) Capacitance (C)[1]
3) Resistance (R) [1]
4) Voltage (V)
5) Current (I)
6) Rise Time (Δt)
7) Coil size (Radius)
8) Number of Coils (and whether they are in series or parallel).
9) Number of windings (or turns) of each coil.
In the first part (points 1-6 below), we will examine the importance of careful impedance matching between all resonating or RLC circuits (R = Resistance, L = Inductance, C = Capacitance) and the use of proper damping to minimize effective resistance, unwanted frequencies, and radiation. Part two (points 7-12 below) involves creating the ideal slew rate, which is then applied to ensure you have the right coils and engineering setup. The goal is to maximize the slew rate using large enough coils to cover the whole body, as much and as evenly as possible, with deep body penetration.
[1] of the coils, cables, and controllers.
Engineering a Quality High-Slew-Rate PEMF Device
Quality is never an accident; it is always the result of high intention, sincere effort, intelligent direction and skillful execution.
― William A. Foster
Over the past year and a half, I have not only conducted a comprehensive review of PEMF research studies but also gained a deeper understanding of the engineering aspects of PEMF, which form the basis of this book. As I mentioned earlier, the shift for me began in early 2024, when I received a call from David, a gifted engineer who had developed a high-slew-rate PEMF device using ingenious electronics and a unique coil design that enabled high-slew-rate coverage over a large area with deep penetration (and minimal electrosmog). The quote introducing this chapter truly encapsulates David's pursuit of excellence in PEMF.
In this section, we will review all the best engineering design strategies for making a high-slew-rate PEMF device. Although I hold a Master's Degree in physics and have taught physics at the college level for five years at Central Michigan and a couple of community colleges, it has taken me quite a while and many conversations with David to truly understand the hands-on engineering involved in building a high-slew-rate PEMF device and exactly what needs to be done to do it well. I was motivated to write this chapter because I wanted to share the engineering side of PEMF, which is rarely discussed in the PEMF industry. The second reason is that, having tested dozens of PEMF mats (and had David test several PEMF devices as well for confirmation), it is clear that many, if not most PEMF companies have flaws in their engineering. And thirdly, it is such an interesting topic for me that I felt strongly motivated to share it all. Now, let's get started!
To accomplish the goal of creating an effective AND safe PEMF signal, one needs to understand BOTH PEMF science/research AND electrical engineering well enough to adjust all the below parameters very carefully. It is essential to properly tune the PEMF controller/driver with all the coils and connecting cables in a way that gives a high research-backed slew rate signal with a large area of coverage, a deep penetration, and a minimal amount of electrosmog (60 Hz, dirty electricity, and other unhealthy higher frequencies). David told me that you can think of these nine parameters like little knobs that ALL must be dialed in "just right" to yield the best possible PEMF signal:
1) Inductance (L)[1]
2) Capacitance (C)[1]
3) Resistance (R) [1]
4) Voltage (V)
5) Current (I)
6) Rise Time (Δt)
7) Coil size (Radius)
8) Number of Coils (and whether they are in series or parallel).
9) Number of windings (or turns) of each coil.
In the first part (points 1-6 below), we will examine the importance of careful impedance matching between all resonating or RLC circuits (R = Resistance, L = Inductance, C = Capacitance) and the use of proper damping to minimize effective resistance, unwanted frequencies, and radiation. Part two (points 7-12 below) involves creating the ideal slew rate, which is then applied to ensure you have the right coils and engineering setup. The goal is to maximize the slew rate using large enough coils to cover the whole body, as much and as evenly as possible, with deep body penetration.
[1] of the coils, cables, and controllers.
Fine Tuning Part 1 (Points 1-6) - Getting Rid of Unintended and Unhealthy Frequencies (60 Hz, Electrosmog, RF)
Point #1. First, we must rectify the wall AC to a cleaner DC. Additionally, to minimize unwanted dirty electricity at higher frequencies, we need a clean power supply (low noise, low dirty power). Some power supplies have a LOT of dirty electricity (and even higher MHz frequencies). We discovered that not all power supplies are created equal. David tested several brands before finding one low in noise/dirty electricity. Most PEMF companies overlook this detail.
Point #2. Next, we need a real function or pulse generator to create a signal. Many cheap gemstone/crystal PEMF mats only pulse 60 Hz wall current, which can be unhealthy. These products are inexpensive because they lack proper signal generators, leading to poor PEMF quality (more on this in Chapter 10).
Point #3. Even with a signal or pulse generator, one must ensure the PEMF device is properly grounded to minimize the 60 Hz electric field surrounding the coils, even when the device is turned off. We have tested many PEMF mats that are ineffectively grounded, and you can measure elevated levels of 60 Hz electric field and dirty electricity with the device turned off.
Point #4. The pulse or frequency generator is the beating heart of the PEMF system, which constrains the range of frequencies, magnetic field slew rates (the rate of change of the magnetic field), and intensities that the PEMF device can produce. The two best drivers of PEMF are frequency/function generators (instruments that generate various waveforms) and solid-state pulse generators (devices that use specialized electronic circuits with a charging and discharging bank of capacitors). Because it is difficult to achieve a high enough slew rate with function generators, solid-state pulse generators are the best way to obtain a high, therapeutic slew rate with sufficient power to drive larger coils and achieve deep penetration. Most low-intensity PEMF devices use function generators, which lack the power to deliver a high slew rate in a full-body mat.
Point #5. Ensure careful source/sink impedance matching of the RLC components (RLC stands for resistance, capacitance, and inductance: the basic electrical properties), which include the driving electronics, the driven coils, and the connecting cables. For example, if you change the coil size, you must ALSO adjust the driving electronics to keep it tuned. If you change the length of the connecting cables, the RLC changes accordingly. And if you increase the slew rate (by increasing the current and voltage), you must also make adjustments.[1]
Point #6. Efforts need to be made to reduce radiated energy (unintended electromagnetic emissions) from the system at frequencies outside its intended range. These unwanted frequencies include line power frequencies that capacitively couple (indirectly transfer energy through an electric field) through the power supply and into the system, impedance mismatching (which is a lack of proper balance between components) and improper damping (not sufficiently reducing oscillations) with driver, coils and cords, radiation from too fast a rise time (the rapidness of a signal's voltage change), parasitic switching in the transistors (unintended operation of switching components), and other miscellaneous unintended oscillations. Also, voltage-boosting circuits and processors with poor layout practices can generate unwanted radiation and higher frequencies. Finally, as devices go to higher and higher power levels, they tend to have more and dirtier electricity, which is why every high-intensity system I have measured has high levels of dirty power.
[1] It is usually very difficult to perfectly match the impedances. The main take away here is that it should at least be in the ballpark.
Point #1. First, we must rectify the wall AC to a cleaner DC. Additionally, to minimize unwanted dirty electricity at higher frequencies, we need a clean power supply (low noise, low dirty power). Some power supplies have a LOT of dirty electricity (and even higher MHz frequencies). We discovered that not all power supplies are created equal. David tested several brands before finding one low in noise/dirty electricity. Most PEMF companies overlook this detail.
Point #2. Next, we need a real function or pulse generator to create a signal. Many cheap gemstone/crystal PEMF mats only pulse 60 Hz wall current, which can be unhealthy. These products are inexpensive because they lack proper signal generators, leading to poor PEMF quality (more on this in Chapter 10).
Point #3. Even with a signal or pulse generator, one must ensure the PEMF device is properly grounded to minimize the 60 Hz electric field surrounding the coils, even when the device is turned off. We have tested many PEMF mats that are ineffectively grounded, and you can measure elevated levels of 60 Hz electric field and dirty electricity with the device turned off.
Point #4. The pulse or frequency generator is the beating heart of the PEMF system, which constrains the range of frequencies, magnetic field slew rates (the rate of change of the magnetic field), and intensities that the PEMF device can produce. The two best drivers of PEMF are frequency/function generators (instruments that generate various waveforms) and solid-state pulse generators (devices that use specialized electronic circuits with a charging and discharging bank of capacitors). Because it is difficult to achieve a high enough slew rate with function generators, solid-state pulse generators are the best way to obtain a high, therapeutic slew rate with sufficient power to drive larger coils and achieve deep penetration. Most low-intensity PEMF devices use function generators, which lack the power to deliver a high slew rate in a full-body mat.
Point #5. Ensure careful source/sink impedance matching of the RLC components (RLC stands for resistance, capacitance, and inductance: the basic electrical properties), which include the driving electronics, the driven coils, and the connecting cables. For example, if you change the coil size, you must ALSO adjust the driving electronics to keep it tuned. If you change the length of the connecting cables, the RLC changes accordingly. And if you increase the slew rate (by increasing the current and voltage), you must also make adjustments.[1]
Point #6. Efforts need to be made to reduce radiated energy (unintended electromagnetic emissions) from the system at frequencies outside its intended range. These unwanted frequencies include line power frequencies that capacitively couple (indirectly transfer energy through an electric field) through the power supply and into the system, impedance mismatching (which is a lack of proper balance between components) and improper damping (not sufficiently reducing oscillations) with driver, coils and cords, radiation from too fast a rise time (the rapidness of a signal's voltage change), parasitic switching in the transistors (unintended operation of switching components), and other miscellaneous unintended oscillations. Also, voltage-boosting circuits and processors with poor layout practices can generate unwanted radiation and higher frequencies. Finally, as devices go to higher and higher power levels, they tend to have more and dirtier electricity, which is why every high-intensity system I have measured has high levels of dirty power.
[1] It is usually very difficult to perfectly match the impedances. The main take away here is that it should at least be in the ballpark.
Fine Tuning Part 2 (Points 7-12) - Creating the Perfect High-Slew-Rate Signal with a Large Area of Coverage and Deep Penetration to Heal Your Whole Body
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
— Henry Ford
Point #7. It is best to place larger PEMF Coils on a full-body mat in parallel circuits, ensuring that the capacitor banks for each coil are in parallel, not in series. This lowers the effective resistance and inductance of the entire PEMF circuit, making it significantly easier and more efficient to achieve a higher and cleaner slew rate with less power. Additionally, placing capacitors in parallel increases the effective capacitance, thereby improving the slew rate. Finally, this also helps to avoid coupling and high-frequency oscillations that can occur between coils in series.
Point #8. Use good connections to avoid losses, which means connections with a large surface area of contact with a good conductor (like silver or gold plating), OR use a connector with many pins or contact points. This lowers the effective resistance, helping to achieve a higher slew rate.
Point #9. Using a sufficiently thick-gauge wire (or a flat copper sheet with a wide conductive area) lowers the circuit's effective resistance, which in turn makes it easier to achieve a high slew rate. More effective resistance is like riding your bike uphill. It takes more energy to maintain the same speed as the hill gets steeper. Similarly, increased resistance makes it harder to change the magnetic field quickly enough to support a reasonable slew rate.
Point #10. A good engineer will add snubber circuits to suppress, or "snub," unwanted higher frequencies and excessive resonances. An RC (resistance/capacitance) snubber circuit can be used to absorb these unwanted and unhealthy energies.
Point #11. When using large coils, the challenge is to create a uniform field while also increasing the penetration depth. There are clever engineering strategies that one company incorporates to accomplish this by providing a wider conductive area (the geometry of a wide conductor makes the field more uniform). Additionally, you can stack the layers in a way to create a capacitive "turbo booster" that increases the voltage and slew rate. This added boost is much needed because large coils provide more of an uphill effective resistance/inductance than small coils. David's mat achieves 25-40 T/s on the whole-body mat, with large 20-inch-diameter coils. There are very few other PEMF companies that achieve high slew rates with large coils at medium intensity (most medium-intensity square-wave full-body mat systems we tested have a slew rate of 3-4 T/s). When done right, larger coils allow for more area and deeper penetration, so your ENTIRE body gets healing energy ALL THE WAY THROUGH from head to toe and back to belly.
Point #12. It is best to use a higher current and lower voltage approach versus a higher voltage and lower current. This usually goes hand in hand with using fewer turns in the coils (which you can do with a higher current/lower voltage approach). Because each turn adds to the inductance and effective resistance, more turns ARE NOT BETTER[1]!
As we stated, all these parameters and considerations above are like knobs or dials that have to be tuned appropriately to get the desired high-slew-rate signal with as little distortion, interference, noise, etc. as possible, AND to deliver that hopefully well-made high slew signal across your entire body as evenly as possible, AND to penetrate that slew rate deeply into the body. All that we have stated is a list of crucial factors to ask PEMF manufacturers if they are doing all this correctly (or if you are a PEMF manufacturer or a capable DIY enthusiast and want to do it better yourself).
[1] Because they have to turn the voltage up higher and higher to get good slew rates, there becomes more and more electrical field high frequency noise to deal with.
Quality means doing it right when no one is looking.
— Henry Ford
Point #7. It is best to place larger PEMF Coils on a full-body mat in parallel circuits, ensuring that the capacitor banks for each coil are in parallel, not in series. This lowers the effective resistance and inductance of the entire PEMF circuit, making it significantly easier and more efficient to achieve a higher and cleaner slew rate with less power. Additionally, placing capacitors in parallel increases the effective capacitance, thereby improving the slew rate. Finally, this also helps to avoid coupling and high-frequency oscillations that can occur between coils in series.
Point #8. Use good connections to avoid losses, which means connections with a large surface area of contact with a good conductor (like silver or gold plating), OR use a connector with many pins or contact points. This lowers the effective resistance, helping to achieve a higher slew rate.
Point #9. Using a sufficiently thick-gauge wire (or a flat copper sheet with a wide conductive area) lowers the circuit's effective resistance, which in turn makes it easier to achieve a high slew rate. More effective resistance is like riding your bike uphill. It takes more energy to maintain the same speed as the hill gets steeper. Similarly, increased resistance makes it harder to change the magnetic field quickly enough to support a reasonable slew rate.
Point #10. A good engineer will add snubber circuits to suppress, or "snub," unwanted higher frequencies and excessive resonances. An RC (resistance/capacitance) snubber circuit can be used to absorb these unwanted and unhealthy energies.
Point #11. When using large coils, the challenge is to create a uniform field while also increasing the penetration depth. There are clever engineering strategies that one company incorporates to accomplish this by providing a wider conductive area (the geometry of a wide conductor makes the field more uniform). Additionally, you can stack the layers in a way to create a capacitive "turbo booster" that increases the voltage and slew rate. This added boost is much needed because large coils provide more of an uphill effective resistance/inductance than small coils. David's mat achieves 25-40 T/s on the whole-body mat, with large 20-inch-diameter coils. There are very few other PEMF companies that achieve high slew rates with large coils at medium intensity (most medium-intensity square-wave full-body mat systems we tested have a slew rate of 3-4 T/s). When done right, larger coils allow for more area and deeper penetration, so your ENTIRE body gets healing energy ALL THE WAY THROUGH from head to toe and back to belly.
Point #12. It is best to use a higher current and lower voltage approach versus a higher voltage and lower current. This usually goes hand in hand with using fewer turns in the coils (which you can do with a higher current/lower voltage approach). Because each turn adds to the inductance and effective resistance, more turns ARE NOT BETTER[1]!
As we stated, all these parameters and considerations above are like knobs or dials that have to be tuned appropriately to get the desired high-slew-rate signal with as little distortion, interference, noise, etc. as possible, AND to deliver that hopefully well-made high slew signal across your entire body as evenly as possible, AND to penetrate that slew rate deeply into the body. All that we have stated is a list of crucial factors to ask PEMF manufacturers if they are doing all this correctly (or if you are a PEMF manufacturer or a capable DIY enthusiast and want to do it better yourself).
[1] Because they have to turn the voltage up higher and higher to get good slew rates, there becomes more and more electrical field high frequency noise to deal with.
Impedance Mismatching
Impedance Mismatch is common in higher-power PEMF devices (sometimes called "ringer" devices, which marketers unknowingly brag about bad engineering). Impedance describes the characteristics of an electronic component in resisting current flow (what we have been calling "effective resistance"). It sounds like resistance, but impedance is proportional to the change in frequency. The impedance of an inductor, and therefore its opposition to current, increases with increasing frequency, which is related to slew rate. As you increase the slew rate, this becomes increasingly important. Impedance mismatch occurs when the source impedance does not match the load impedance. With a PEMF device, the PEMF control unit or signal generator serves as the source, while the connecting cables and coils act as the load.
Impedance matching is important for two reasons. The first is that you achieve maximum power transfer when the source and load impedances are matched as closely as possible. This is important in creating a high-slew-rate PEMF signal because if you diminish the power transferred to the coils due to impedance mismatch, you lower the slew rate. The second important reason for impedance matching is that mismatches can cause signal reflections, leading to signal distortion or static, including unwanted higher frequencies that can potentially be electrosmog!
Most high-intensity PEMF devices and some lower-intensity devices emit unwanted high-frequency dirty electricity or radio frequencies (MHz), which can manifest as unfavorable semi-sinusoidal "ringing". This ringing, in part, comes from impedance mismatch. Oddly, some high-intensity PEMF influencers refer to these as "ringer" devices, as if the "ringing" is a good thing, when in reality, it means unfavorable, higher-frequency harmonics. Ringing is most definitely undesirable, as it can cause unwanted higher-frequency voltage spikes, increase settling time, and potentially interfere with other circuits in the device. <See Image Above>.
Impedance Mismatch is common in higher-power PEMF devices (sometimes called "ringer" devices, which marketers unknowingly brag about bad engineering). Impedance describes the characteristics of an electronic component in resisting current flow (what we have been calling "effective resistance"). It sounds like resistance, but impedance is proportional to the change in frequency. The impedance of an inductor, and therefore its opposition to current, increases with increasing frequency, which is related to slew rate. As you increase the slew rate, this becomes increasingly important. Impedance mismatch occurs when the source impedance does not match the load impedance. With a PEMF device, the PEMF control unit or signal generator serves as the source, while the connecting cables and coils act as the load.
Impedance matching is important for two reasons. The first is that you achieve maximum power transfer when the source and load impedances are matched as closely as possible. This is important in creating a high-slew-rate PEMF signal because if you diminish the power transferred to the coils due to impedance mismatch, you lower the slew rate. The second important reason for impedance matching is that mismatches can cause signal reflections, leading to signal distortion or static, including unwanted higher frequencies that can potentially be electrosmog!
Most high-intensity PEMF devices and some lower-intensity devices emit unwanted high-frequency dirty electricity or radio frequencies (MHz), which can manifest as unfavorable semi-sinusoidal "ringing". This ringing, in part, comes from impedance mismatch. Oddly, some high-intensity PEMF influencers refer to these as "ringer" devices, as if the "ringing" is a good thing, when in reality, it means unfavorable, higher-frequency harmonics. Ringing is most definitely undesirable, as it can cause unwanted higher-frequency voltage spikes, increase settling time, and potentially interfere with other circuits in the device. <See Image Above>.
Coils - Use Fewer Turns, More Current!
The image shown here is a bad example of using too many turns in a PEMF coil design. Now, such a coil will increase the magnetic field intensity, BUT it will also drastically increase the effective resistance, which makes it harder to achieve a high slew rate. This means you would need higher and higher voltages to compensate for the added resistance. Also, these extra windings not only decrease the slew rate but can also increase the likelihood of unwanted frequencies. The coil shown here has way too much inductance, and while the unit's intensity is probably 100 gauss as advertised, the slew rate will NOT be good because the high inductance makes it very difficult to change the magnetic field rapidly (which is what is needed for a high-slew-rate!). This becomes increasingly problematic as you increase the number of windings, the size of the coils, and the number of coils in series. Sadly, many PEMF companies make it sound like more turns and more copper equals higher quality, when really it is NOT A GOOD THING, at least with regards to creating a high slew rate signal.
Also, worth noting is that the system that uses these coils claims to go up to higher frequencies, but the high inductance will act as a filter, so you won't get those higher frequencies IN THE FIELD measured by a hall effect probe (or they will be at drastically reduced amplitudes)!!! This is a prime example of why you should NOT be focusing on intensity numbers in PEMF!
The better solution is a wide/thick conduction wire with fewer windings and MORE current, which gives you the same magnetic field intensity with less effective resistance. For example, if you have 100 windings at a given current (I), you can duplicate the magnetic field intensity with, say, only five turns and 20 times the current. As already mentioned, the benefit of using more current with fewer windings is that you get the same intensity with less effective resistance, which translates into a higher slew rate (assuming you have sufficient-gauge wire or a wide ribbon wire design). The downside to using higher current is that it significantly increases the material costs. This is a big problem with several popular PEMF devices!
The image shown here is a bad example of using too many turns in a PEMF coil design. Now, such a coil will increase the magnetic field intensity, BUT it will also drastically increase the effective resistance, which makes it harder to achieve a high slew rate. This means you would need higher and higher voltages to compensate for the added resistance. Also, these extra windings not only decrease the slew rate but can also increase the likelihood of unwanted frequencies. The coil shown here has way too much inductance, and while the unit's intensity is probably 100 gauss as advertised, the slew rate will NOT be good because the high inductance makes it very difficult to change the magnetic field rapidly (which is what is needed for a high-slew-rate!). This becomes increasingly problematic as you increase the number of windings, the size of the coils, and the number of coils in series. Sadly, many PEMF companies make it sound like more turns and more copper equals higher quality, when really it is NOT A GOOD THING, at least with regards to creating a high slew rate signal.
Also, worth noting is that the system that uses these coils claims to go up to higher frequencies, but the high inductance will act as a filter, so you won't get those higher frequencies IN THE FIELD measured by a hall effect probe (or they will be at drastically reduced amplitudes)!!! This is a prime example of why you should NOT be focusing on intensity numbers in PEMF!
The better solution is a wide/thick conduction wire with fewer windings and MORE current, which gives you the same magnetic field intensity with less effective resistance. For example, if you have 100 windings at a given current (I), you can duplicate the magnetic field intensity with, say, only five turns and 20 times the current. As already mentioned, the benefit of using more current with fewer windings is that you get the same intensity with less effective resistance, which translates into a higher slew rate (assuming you have sufficient-gauge wire or a wide ribbon wire design). The downside to using higher current is that it significantly increases the material costs. This is a big problem with several popular PEMF devices!
The WORST examples of coils are the cheap Chinese gemstone mat coils, which have way too many windings and are so thin, increasing resistance and the risk of breakage [1]. On top of this, with all the windings around a ferrite core, you create a ridiculously high inductance, which lowers the slew rate to levels so low they are provably not therapeutic! More on this in the next Chapter.
Some Reasons Why NOT to DIY (Do It Yourself)
The main problem with DIY is that, as we just explained, you need the pulse shape to be correctly tuned so it has a high slew rate and no unwanted electromagnetic noise or high frequencies. This is a lot like tuning a piano, but it is no trivial matter for all the reasons discussed in this chapter. Also, you need components with rigorous quality/calibration controls, and the right equipment to test the output signal RIGOROUSLY. This would require spending extra money on not only the materials and tools, but also on test equipment. Without testing equipment, you have no idea how good and clean the signal is! So, in the end, you wouldn't save much money doing it yourself, since all the costs can add up. It is usually better, easier, and safer to buy a well-engineered, well-tested device from a reputable PEMF company or manufacturer. However, if you have the technical know-how and the proper tools and testing equipment, then, of course, DIY is an option, and it is easier for small coil systems that can treat superficial wounds and pains, like toes and knuckles[1].
[1] While it's easier to DIY a PEMF device with small coils and a small battery, the result is a coil that covers a limited area and doesn't penetrate deeply. Making larger coils becomes exponentially more difficult for all the reasons we mentioned in this section. However, it is worth noting that this could be a good way to start if you are really budget-conscious and want to try it. Small DIY versions are okay for tiny/portable devices if you already have an oscilloscope and other testing tools.
The main problem with DIY is that, as we just explained, you need the pulse shape to be correctly tuned so it has a high slew rate and no unwanted electromagnetic noise or high frequencies. This is a lot like tuning a piano, but it is no trivial matter for all the reasons discussed in this chapter. Also, you need components with rigorous quality/calibration controls, and the right equipment to test the output signal RIGOROUSLY. This would require spending extra money on not only the materials and tools, but also on test equipment. Without testing equipment, you have no idea how good and clean the signal is! So, in the end, you wouldn't save much money doing it yourself, since all the costs can add up. It is usually better, easier, and safer to buy a well-engineered, well-tested device from a reputable PEMF company or manufacturer. However, if you have the technical know-how and the proper tools and testing equipment, then, of course, DIY is an option, and it is easier for small coil systems that can treat superficial wounds and pains, like toes and knuckles[1].
[1] While it's easier to DIY a PEMF device with small coils and a small battery, the result is a coil that covers a limited area and doesn't penetrate deeply. Making larger coils becomes exponentially more difficult for all the reasons we mentioned in this section. However, it is worth noting that this could be a good way to start if you are really budget-conscious and want to try it. Small DIY versions are okay for tiny/portable devices if you already have an oscilloscope and other testing tools.
Chapter 10:
Avoid Cheap and Counterfeit PEMF Mats - Chinese Gemstone Mats
The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.
―Maureen Dowd
Back in 2019, I first reviewed one of these cheap Chinese crystal PEMF mats and conducted some tests using my oscilloscope. I did this because the company selling it was doing sham reviews against the main brand I recommended at the time, along with other quality brands. Because the price was so low and it was clearly something made in China, I knew something was amiss. The primary selling point is that these mats claim to be "multi-therapy" featuring not only PEMF, but also far infrared, negative ions, and even red light therapy. These mats reminded me of the popularity of the BioMat® far infrared crystal mat (which I owned and used and always felt was way overpriced), and it seemed to me all these new companies were just copying that idea and adding PEMF therapy to it to jump on the PEMF bandwagon.
The mat I bought to test back then claimed to have a 7.83 Hz frequency, and when I measured the signal on my oscilloscope, I expected to see a 7.83 Hz sine wave. What I actually saw surprised me <see image here of my first actual test of one of these mats>. What you are looking at is a 60 Hz sine wave turned on and off roughly 7.83 times a second. It took me a while to realize what was going on, but by zooming in to a one-second window, I figured out that these pulses are 60 Hz, not 7.83 Hz. I have come to find out ALL THESE CHINESE crystal PEMF mats simply switch 60 Hz from the power company on and off at different repetition rates, like turning a light switch on and off really fast. As we saw in Chapter 8, 60 Hz from the power company is not healthy at all. In fact, it is linked to many chronic health issues [1-22]. Because I noticed these mats were trending in popularity due to their price, I decided to expose what I now call the biggest scam in the PEMF industry.
Avoid Cheap and Counterfeit PEMF Mats - Chinese Gemstone Mats
The minute you settle for less than you deserve, you get even less than you settled for.
―Maureen Dowd
Back in 2019, I first reviewed one of these cheap Chinese crystal PEMF mats and conducted some tests using my oscilloscope. I did this because the company selling it was doing sham reviews against the main brand I recommended at the time, along with other quality brands. Because the price was so low and it was clearly something made in China, I knew something was amiss. The primary selling point is that these mats claim to be "multi-therapy" featuring not only PEMF, but also far infrared, negative ions, and even red light therapy. These mats reminded me of the popularity of the BioMat® far infrared crystal mat (which I owned and used and always felt was way overpriced), and it seemed to me all these new companies were just copying that idea and adding PEMF therapy to it to jump on the PEMF bandwagon.
The mat I bought to test back then claimed to have a 7.83 Hz frequency, and when I measured the signal on my oscilloscope, I expected to see a 7.83 Hz sine wave. What I actually saw surprised me <see image here of my first actual test of one of these mats>. What you are looking at is a 60 Hz sine wave turned on and off roughly 7.83 times a second. It took me a while to realize what was going on, but by zooming in to a one-second window, I figured out that these pulses are 60 Hz, not 7.83 Hz. I have come to find out ALL THESE CHINESE crystal PEMF mats simply switch 60 Hz from the power company on and off at different repetition rates, like turning a light switch on and off really fast. As we saw in Chapter 8, 60 Hz from the power company is not healthy at all. In fact, it is linked to many chronic health issues [1-22]. Because I noticed these mats were trending in popularity due to their price, I decided to expose what I now call the biggest scam in the PEMF industry.
Fast forward six years, and now there are literally hundreds of brands of these inexpensive Chinese gemstone mats that are aggressively marketed as PEMF multi-therapy mats, claiming to offer PEMF, far infrared, negative ions, and red light therapy. I am seeing a new one pop up almost every month. Why? They are so inexpensive to import from China and highly profitable to sell in the U.S. and abroad. I have heard from a reputable source that one Chinese manufacturer produces these mats for 300 different companies. Because profit margins are so high, companies can aggressively market online through advertising and influencer partnerships. The unsuspecting consumers then believe these mats are effective PEMF devices, when in reality, they are a big scam that we'll expose in this section.
However, they are not really PEMF at all, but rather EMF/Electrosmog, as they simply pulse the 60 Hz power company frequency through extremely inexpensive coils. And worse, these mats, even when turned off, still have a measurable 60 Hz electric field EMF!! I have tested 12 of the most popular brands of these counterfeit PEMF devices and found them to be among the worst in the entire PEMF industry. The mats give the entire PEMF industry a bad name because when people get no results (or side effects from the electrosmog) with them, they think PEMF doesn't work and then move on to something else. This is both sad and upsetting because I have seen good PEMF devices dramatically change (for the better) and even save lives.
First and foremost, how do you identify these cheap Chinese mats? It's simple. Ask yourself one question: Does the PEMF mat have crystals or gemstones in it? If the answer is yes, move on, as there are no reputable PEMF devices that I am aware of that incorporate crystals or gemstones (at the time of publication of this book). Let's now explore 10 reasons why not to buy ANY of these Chinese crystal mats so that you won't be duped by their slick marketing and bogus review sites[1].
[1] Any review site ranking these mats #1 is an outright scam, and usually the review site is owned by the company or an affiliate selling it.
However, they are not really PEMF at all, but rather EMF/Electrosmog, as they simply pulse the 60 Hz power company frequency through extremely inexpensive coils. And worse, these mats, even when turned off, still have a measurable 60 Hz electric field EMF!! I have tested 12 of the most popular brands of these counterfeit PEMF devices and found them to be among the worst in the entire PEMF industry. The mats give the entire PEMF industry a bad name because when people get no results (or side effects from the electrosmog) with them, they think PEMF doesn't work and then move on to something else. This is both sad and upsetting because I have seen good PEMF devices dramatically change (for the better) and even save lives.
First and foremost, how do you identify these cheap Chinese mats? It's simple. Ask yourself one question: Does the PEMF mat have crystals or gemstones in it? If the answer is yes, move on, as there are no reputable PEMF devices that I am aware of that incorporate crystals or gemstones (at the time of publication of this book). Let's now explore 10 reasons why not to buy ANY of these Chinese crystal mats so that you won't be duped by their slick marketing and bogus review sites[1].
[1] Any review site ranking these mats #1 is an outright scam, and usually the review site is owned by the company or an affiliate selling it.
Reason #1 Not to Buy - They ALL Have a Dismally Low Slew Rate
Before we delve into the scams and potentially harmful elements of these Chinese counterfeit PEMF mats, let's first give them the benefit of the doubt and analyze their PEMF signal and coils scientifically, which are fundamentally the two key factors determining whether a PEMF device will be effective or not, as we saw in Chapters 1-4. The first and most important aspect of the signal is the slew rate. I have tested several of these Chinese mats at their highest frequency and intensity settings (again giving them the benefit of the doubt to maximize slew rate). They all have a dismally low slew rates, which, even on their highest settings, were at best a little over 1 T/s and as low as around 0.4 T/s, and this was directly above the small, cheap coils.
Slew rate example test on two popular brands:
Example #1: Popular Chinese gemstone PEMF mat #1 on 30 Hz and the highest intensity. Slew Rate = .442 T/s (see below left).
Example #2: Popular Chinese gemstone PEMF mat #2 on 30 Hz and the highest intensity. Slew Rate = 1.04 T/s (see below right).
Here is how the results were accurately calculated: I tested the slew rate using a Hall-effect sensor (Digi-Key part # EQ731L-ND) taped to the mat where the magnetic field appeared to be strongest. Every 65 millivolts equals one millitesla, so using example #1, the rise and run are 239.03 millivolts and 8.299 milliseconds, respectively. This works out to about a 0.442 T/s (tesla per second) slew rate. The rise and run on the second mat were 572 mV and 8.48 ms, respectively, yielding a calculated slew rate of 1.04 T/s. Notice that I have two decimal places because these are precise measurements with high-level scientific equipment!
NewMed Ltd. (host of the PEMF podcast) also duplicated many of these tests, such as measuring the slew rate, and exposed this scam in a recent podcast video [23]. They purchased two other popular Chinese gemstone mats and measured slew rates of 0.7 T/s and 0.4 T/s, which are very close to the measurements I obtained, providing further confirmation that all of these mats have very low slew rates that are not therapeutic, according to both physics and clinical research.
Buyer Beware: One company that sells these cheap Chinese crystal mats claims to have slew rates over 20 T/s! Their slew rates are provably at best only 1 T/s and at worst under .4 T/s. Here was one of their wildly incorrect responses to a prospective consumer, "our higher intensity mat, which is 30 gauss, does have an estimated peak slew of 20 T/s while our strongest pad is probably around 26 T/s by our estimates". This is not even remotely accurate. Proof: By understanding that all these mats use a 60 Hz carrier, which is an 8.3 ms rise time, the slew rate of 30 gauss (3 mT) would be 3mT/8.3ms = .36 T/s (compared to their claimed 20 T/s, which is a 5500% error!)[1]!
[1] There is a current trend with cheaper brands to LIE about their slew rates. Demand a third party test by an engineer! Only 3 companies I am aware of have verified and accurate slew rate reports. Call me 941-928-0124 for a free consultation if you have heard a company making a slew rate claim, and I am happy to comment (or look into it if it is one I am not aware of).
Before we delve into the scams and potentially harmful elements of these Chinese counterfeit PEMF mats, let's first give them the benefit of the doubt and analyze their PEMF signal and coils scientifically, which are fundamentally the two key factors determining whether a PEMF device will be effective or not, as we saw in Chapters 1-4. The first and most important aspect of the signal is the slew rate. I have tested several of these Chinese mats at their highest frequency and intensity settings (again giving them the benefit of the doubt to maximize slew rate). They all have a dismally low slew rates, which, even on their highest settings, were at best a little over 1 T/s and as low as around 0.4 T/s, and this was directly above the small, cheap coils.
Slew rate example test on two popular brands:
Example #1: Popular Chinese gemstone PEMF mat #1 on 30 Hz and the highest intensity. Slew Rate = .442 T/s (see below left).
Example #2: Popular Chinese gemstone PEMF mat #2 on 30 Hz and the highest intensity. Slew Rate = 1.04 T/s (see below right).
Here is how the results were accurately calculated: I tested the slew rate using a Hall-effect sensor (Digi-Key part # EQ731L-ND) taped to the mat where the magnetic field appeared to be strongest. Every 65 millivolts equals one millitesla, so using example #1, the rise and run are 239.03 millivolts and 8.299 milliseconds, respectively. This works out to about a 0.442 T/s (tesla per second) slew rate. The rise and run on the second mat were 572 mV and 8.48 ms, respectively, yielding a calculated slew rate of 1.04 T/s. Notice that I have two decimal places because these are precise measurements with high-level scientific equipment!
NewMed Ltd. (host of the PEMF podcast) also duplicated many of these tests, such as measuring the slew rate, and exposed this scam in a recent podcast video [23]. They purchased two other popular Chinese gemstone mats and measured slew rates of 0.7 T/s and 0.4 T/s, which are very close to the measurements I obtained, providing further confirmation that all of these mats have very low slew rates that are not therapeutic, according to both physics and clinical research.
Buyer Beware: One company that sells these cheap Chinese crystal mats claims to have slew rates over 20 T/s! Their slew rates are provably at best only 1 T/s and at worst under .4 T/s. Here was one of their wildly incorrect responses to a prospective consumer, "our higher intensity mat, which is 30 gauss, does have an estimated peak slew of 20 T/s while our strongest pad is probably around 26 T/s by our estimates". This is not even remotely accurate. Proof: By understanding that all these mats use a 60 Hz carrier, which is an 8.3 ms rise time, the slew rate of 30 gauss (3 mT) would be 3mT/8.3ms = .36 T/s (compared to their claimed 20 T/s, which is a 5500% error!)[1]!
[1] There is a current trend with cheaper brands to LIE about their slew rates. Demand a third party test by an engineer! Only 3 companies I am aware of have verified and accurate slew rate reports. Call me 941-928-0124 for a free consultation if you have heard a company making a slew rate claim, and I am happy to comment (or look into it if it is one I am not aware of).
|
|
Discussion
Remember from Point #1 on Slew rate that a slew rate of 4 T/s is needed to exceed thermal noise [24], and good PEMF slew rate research we looked at in chapter 3 is typically greater than 5 T/s. The reason all these cheap Chinese gemstone mats have a dismally low slew rate is that they all use a 60 Hz carrier from the power company, which means it's always an 8.3 millisecond rise time (half period of 60 Hz from valley to peak), so ALL these mats have roughly the same rise time. So even though the intensity is not bad right above the coil, because it has a dismally slow rise time, it has a LOW SLEW RATE[1]!! Again, slew rate matters, NOT INTENSITY!
And while we demonstrated that magnetic resonance is another valid method for PEMF, these systems all pulse at 60 Hz, resulting in a poor slew rate and a very narrow frequency spectrum centered on 60 Hz and its harmonics[2]. Again, these frequencies are NOT healthy [1-22]! Therefore, there is nothing therapeutic about these Chinese mats, either via the slew rate approach to PEMF or the magnetic resonance approach.
[1] As we'll see next, these Chinese crystal mats use small rod ferrite core coils that only give decent intensity readings directly on top of the coils, and there is literally oceans of dead space between these coils. This is usually a bad thing, but because the energy from these mats are more electrosmog than PEMF, it is perhaps a blessing in disguise.
[2] The bandwidth of a sine wave PEMF is usually zero because the limited higher harmonics are so incredibly weak in intensity or amplitude [34].
Remember from Point #1 on Slew rate that a slew rate of 4 T/s is needed to exceed thermal noise [24], and good PEMF slew rate research we looked at in chapter 3 is typically greater than 5 T/s. The reason all these cheap Chinese gemstone mats have a dismally low slew rate is that they all use a 60 Hz carrier from the power company, which means it's always an 8.3 millisecond rise time (half period of 60 Hz from valley to peak), so ALL these mats have roughly the same rise time. So even though the intensity is not bad right above the coil, because it has a dismally slow rise time, it has a LOW SLEW RATE[1]!! Again, slew rate matters, NOT INTENSITY!
And while we demonstrated that magnetic resonance is another valid method for PEMF, these systems all pulse at 60 Hz, resulting in a poor slew rate and a very narrow frequency spectrum centered on 60 Hz and its harmonics[2]. Again, these frequencies are NOT healthy [1-22]! Therefore, there is nothing therapeutic about these Chinese mats, either via the slew rate approach to PEMF or the magnetic resonance approach.
[1] As we'll see next, these Chinese crystal mats use small rod ferrite core coils that only give decent intensity readings directly on top of the coils, and there is literally oceans of dead space between these coils. This is usually a bad thing, but because the energy from these mats are more electrosmog than PEMF, it is perhaps a blessing in disguise.
[2] The bandwidth of a sine wave PEMF is usually zero because the limited higher harmonics are so incredibly weak in intensity or amplitude [34].
Reason #2 Not to Buy - Small and Cheap Rod Ferrite Coils
All these inexpensive Chinese gemstone mats use rod ferrite coils, which provide a very small coverage area and poor penetration depth. Additionally, the coils have an inductance that is too high, and the magnetic field flux lines are emanating sideways (rather than into the body). These cheap coils, available for less than a dollar on Alibaba, are less than ideal for transmitting PEMF signals. They might be good for portable radios and for condensing magnetic fields, but they are NOT AT ALL suited for PEMF therapy! Nowhere in their marketing do they make it clear the kinds of coils they use. These coils are too small and, because of their small size, create large "dead" spots in the large areas in between them. Because the ferrous (iron) core focuses the magnetic field, when you measure the intensity, it is a good medium intensity reading RIGHT ON TOP OF THE COIL, but because all the magnetic field lines get sucked into the core, the intensity drops off incredibly rapidly. This is why you want larger circular air-core coils or loops: they allow the magnetic field to fill a larger volume, which is crucial for a PEMF device because we want to penetrate deeply into the body and cover a large area.Having a ferrous-core, small-coil like these is the epitome of poor engineering, based on a lack of understanding of the basic physics of PEMF.
All these inexpensive Chinese gemstone mats use rod ferrite coils, which provide a very small coverage area and poor penetration depth. Additionally, the coils have an inductance that is too high, and the magnetic field flux lines are emanating sideways (rather than into the body). These cheap coils, available for less than a dollar on Alibaba, are less than ideal for transmitting PEMF signals. They might be good for portable radios and for condensing magnetic fields, but they are NOT AT ALL suited for PEMF therapy! Nowhere in their marketing do they make it clear the kinds of coils they use. These coils are too small and, because of their small size, create large "dead" spots in the large areas in between them. Because the ferrous (iron) core focuses the magnetic field, when you measure the intensity, it is a good medium intensity reading RIGHT ON TOP OF THE COIL, but because all the magnetic field lines get sucked into the core, the intensity drops off incredibly rapidly. This is why you want larger circular air-core coils or loops: they allow the magnetic field to fill a larger volume, which is crucial for a PEMF device because we want to penetrate deeply into the body and cover a large area.Having a ferrous-core, small-coil like these is the epitome of poor engineering, based on a lack of understanding of the basic physics of PEMF.
|
|
As proof of this, I tested the magnetic field intensity drop-offs of a top-selling Chinese gemstone mat using an accurate Hall-effect probe. These field drop-off results were captured on an oscilloscope, indicating that the field was strongest directly above the coil and dropped off rapidly in all directions around it. Also, I measured several dead spots across the mats. Because all these inexpensive Chinese gemstone mats use the same coils (though they vary in number from 2 to 8), the results were similar across all the devices we tested. What I am reporting is the best-case scenario, as many mats had even larger dead spots.
Slew Rate Measurements on Example #2 Chinese Mat
1.18 inches up = .97 T/s
4 inches on each side = .97 T/s
4 inches above the coil = .049 T/s
Center of the Mat = .009 T/s
But because slew rate is the key (not intensity) and because the slew rate was dismally low even right on top of the coil where the intensity was the highest, I predicted the slew rates would be almost non-existent any appreciable distance from the coil, and that is precisely what we found <see below right measurement values>. Note that even 1.18 inches up (3 cm) and 4 inches to the side (10.16 cm), the slew rate is only about 0.1 T/s. And in the center of the mat, we measured .01 T/s! These ridiculously low numbers will not yield any therapeutic value beyond a placebo (and physics and clinical research confirm this!).
Slew Rate Measurements on Example #2 Chinese Mat
1.18 inches up = .97 T/s
4 inches on each side = .97 T/s
4 inches above the coil = .049 T/s
Center of the Mat = .009 T/s
But because slew rate is the key (not intensity) and because the slew rate was dismally low even right on top of the coil where the intensity was the highest, I predicted the slew rates would be almost non-existent any appreciable distance from the coil, and that is precisely what we found <see below right measurement values>. Note that even 1.18 inches up (3 cm) and 4 inches to the side (10.16 cm), the slew rate is only about 0.1 T/s. And in the center of the mat, we measured .01 T/s! These ridiculously low numbers will not yield any therapeutic value beyond a placebo (and physics and clinical research confirm this!).
|
|
Summary of Why These Chinese PEMF Coils Are So Bad
1) They are too small.
2) The magnetic field lines come out sideways.
3) The ferrite core concentrates the magnetic field inside the coil (this is why you want an air core coil)
4) There is way too much dead space between the coils.
5) The "hair-thin" copper wire easily breaks and produces a high level of resistance.
6) They have way too many windings, creating a large inductance (along with the ferrous core).
7) They are cheap and ill-suited for PEMF devices that require larger, air-core, circular coils. These are among the worst possible coils you could design for PEMF!
1) They are too small.
2) The magnetic field lines come out sideways.
3) The ferrite core concentrates the magnetic field inside the coil (this is why you want an air core coil)
4) There is way too much dead space between the coils.
5) The "hair-thin" copper wire easily breaks and produces a high level of resistance.
6) They have way too many windings, creating a large inductance (along with the ferrous core).
7) They are cheap and ill-suited for PEMF devices that require larger, air-core, circular coils. These are among the worst possible coils you could design for PEMF!
Reason #3 Not to Buy: 60 Hz, 60 Hz Everywhere
Although we have already mentioned this, it is worth repeating. The worst aspect of these cheap Chinese mats - THEY HAVE NO SIGNAL GENERATOR SO THEY SIMPLY SWITCH/PULSE YOUR 60 HZ WALL CURRENT ON AND OFF - what they call frequency is simply how many times the 60 Hz gets turned on and off a second. This is false advertising because they fail to disclose to consumers that every program relies on 60 Hz power from the power company, as they do not have a signal generator. What they call frequency is simply the repetition rate, or pulsing rate, of the 60 Hz from the power company, which, in the image here, is approximately 4 Hz (switches 60 Hz on and off 4 times a second). But on an oscilloscope, you always see the 60 Hz carrier signal. Any engineer or anyone with an oscilloscope can verify this[1].
As we explained in the previous section, 60 Hz is an electrosmog EMF that can be potentially harmful in long-term exposure. There are many negative health consequences to pulsing 60 Hz [1-22], one of which is that it suppresses melatonin production as we discussed earlier, which is not only the "sleep" hormone, but also the master antioxidant at the cellular level and a powerful cancer protective (oncostatic) [25-28].
[1] One of these companies claims to have a square wave with their top of the line mat, but even that was easily seen to be 60 Hz on an oscilliscope AND at very low slew rate. In fact, the slew rate on their cheaper mats was higher than the square wave on their more advanced device!
Although we have already mentioned this, it is worth repeating. The worst aspect of these cheap Chinese mats - THEY HAVE NO SIGNAL GENERATOR SO THEY SIMPLY SWITCH/PULSE YOUR 60 HZ WALL CURRENT ON AND OFF - what they call frequency is simply how many times the 60 Hz gets turned on and off a second. This is false advertising because they fail to disclose to consumers that every program relies on 60 Hz power from the power company, as they do not have a signal generator. What they call frequency is simply the repetition rate, or pulsing rate, of the 60 Hz from the power company, which, in the image here, is approximately 4 Hz (switches 60 Hz on and off 4 times a second). But on an oscilloscope, you always see the 60 Hz carrier signal. Any engineer or anyone with an oscilloscope can verify this[1].
As we explained in the previous section, 60 Hz is an electrosmog EMF that can be potentially harmful in long-term exposure. There are many negative health consequences to pulsing 60 Hz [1-22], one of which is that it suppresses melatonin production as we discussed earlier, which is not only the "sleep" hormone, but also the master antioxidant at the cellular level and a powerful cancer protective (oncostatic) [25-28].
[1] One of these companies claims to have a square wave with their top of the line mat, but even that was easily seen to be 60 Hz on an oscilliscope AND at very low slew rate. In fact, the slew rate on their cheaper mats was higher than the square wave on their more advanced device!
Reason #4 Not to Buy: Cheap Infrared
The far infrared on all these cheap Chinese mats uses inexpensive silicon wire, which can be purchased on Alibaba for $0.10 per meter. This is the same inexpensive heating element found on inexpensive Amazon heating pads, unlike quality carbon or ceramic infrared heating elements used in quality saunas. I found this wire on Alibaba for as little as 10 cents/ meter. I measured the total length of the wire in a couple of these cheap full-body mats, and it was about 18 meters on average, which translates to $1.80 for the far infrared. Cheap Cheap Cheap[1]!
[1] At the time of this writing, only two quality PEMF devices are using carbon far infrared heating elements (and of course neither have crystals or gemstones). If you want quality PEMF with far infrared therapy included call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124. I am happy to help because there are so many scams out there!
The far infrared on all these cheap Chinese mats uses inexpensive silicon wire, which can be purchased on Alibaba for $0.10 per meter. This is the same inexpensive heating element found on inexpensive Amazon heating pads, unlike quality carbon or ceramic infrared heating elements used in quality saunas. I found this wire on Alibaba for as little as 10 cents/ meter. I measured the total length of the wire in a couple of these cheap full-body mats, and it was about 18 meters on average, which translates to $1.80 for the far infrared. Cheap Cheap Cheap[1]!
[1] At the time of this writing, only two quality PEMF devices are using carbon far infrared heating elements (and of course neither have crystals or gemstones). If you want quality PEMF with far infrared therapy included call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124. I am happy to help because there are so many scams out there!
|
|
Reason #5 Not to Buy: The Great Negative Ion SCAM!!
Zero Negative Ions Measured (and Confirmed by Alpha Labs)!
These cheap Chinese gemstone mats claim (incorrectly) that when heated, amethyst, obsidian, tourmaline, quartz, jade, and yellow clay, among others, increase the number of negative ions. This is an absolute SCAM! Using an incredibly high-precision Alpha Labs negative ion counter[1] and receiving expert guidance on its use from the President and chief engineer himself at Alpha Labs, there were absolutely zero negative ions detected. Bill Lee, PhD, owner and lead engineer at Alpha Labs, did an experiment because he was tired of hearing that crystals emit negative ions. He found that a temperature of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit is required to produce negative ions from crystals, but this process also yields both negative and positive ions. If you want negative ions with PEMF, you can simply buy an inexpensive negative ion generator on Amazon. Anyone Skeptical can call Alpha Labs directly to confirm this!! YOU CANNOT GET NEGATIVE IONS FROM CRYSTALS!
[1] https://www.alphalabinc.com/products/aic
Zero Negative Ions Measured (and Confirmed by Alpha Labs)!
These cheap Chinese gemstone mats claim (incorrectly) that when heated, amethyst, obsidian, tourmaline, quartz, jade, and yellow clay, among others, increase the number of negative ions. This is an absolute SCAM! Using an incredibly high-precision Alpha Labs negative ion counter[1] and receiving expert guidance on its use from the President and chief engineer himself at Alpha Labs, there were absolutely zero negative ions detected. Bill Lee, PhD, owner and lead engineer at Alpha Labs, did an experiment because he was tired of hearing that crystals emit negative ions. He found that a temperature of 1100 degrees Fahrenheit is required to produce negative ions from crystals, but this process also yields both negative and positive ions. If you want negative ions with PEMF, you can simply buy an inexpensive negative ion generator on Amazon. Anyone Skeptical can call Alpha Labs directly to confirm this!! YOU CANNOT GET NEGATIVE IONS FROM CRYSTALS!
[1] https://www.alphalabinc.com/products/aic
|
|
Reason #6 Not to Buy: The Red Light Therapy Scam
Some of these cheap mats tout another gimmick - red light therapy. Upon measuring several of these cheap Chinese brands with red light, I found that they all had less than 3 mW/cm^2, in some cases even less than the irradiance of cheap Christmas tree lights. Michael Hamblin of Harvard and other experts in photobiomodulation (red light therapy) research have shown you need at least 5 mW/cm^2 to be therapeutic [29-31][1].
None of these cheap Chinese mats meet this all-important criterion for red light therapy. On a popular Chinese gemstone mat that claimed 2.5 mW/cm^2 (which is already not ideal), I measured a range of 1-1.4 mW/cm^2 (see below) across several measurements using an accurate spectroradiometer. These companies use solar meters that skew readings, making them NOT accurate!
Irradiance from Red Lights on a Top Selling Cheap Chinese Gemstone PEMF Mat (this one retailed for around $2000!)
Measurement 1: 1.08 mW/cm^2
Measurement 2: 1.27 mW/cm^2
Measurement 3: 1.27 mW/cm^2
Measurement 4: 1.35 mW/cm^2
Measurement 5: 1.35 mW/cm^2
Just for fun, I compared this to cheap Christmas tree lights I purchased from Amazon. What I found was that the irradiance (brightness) of the Christmas lights was just barely a little less than that of the Chinese mat. Like the Christmas tree lights, these cheap Chinese mats are only suitable for decoration, and not therapeutic at all!
Irradiance from Christmas Tree Lights
Measurement 1: .950 mW/cm^2
Measurement 2: 1.18 mW/cm^2
[1] Refer, for example, to the book Low-Level Light Therapy: Photobiomodulation. Hamblin, M, et al. (2018). Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Page 10: "Assuming that the reported parameters can be trusted, studies of beam irradiance report successful tissue repair and anti-inflammatory effects from 5–50 mW/cm2 at the target tissue depth [29-31].
Some of these cheap mats tout another gimmick - red light therapy. Upon measuring several of these cheap Chinese brands with red light, I found that they all had less than 3 mW/cm^2, in some cases even less than the irradiance of cheap Christmas tree lights. Michael Hamblin of Harvard and other experts in photobiomodulation (red light therapy) research have shown you need at least 5 mW/cm^2 to be therapeutic [29-31][1].
None of these cheap Chinese mats meet this all-important criterion for red light therapy. On a popular Chinese gemstone mat that claimed 2.5 mW/cm^2 (which is already not ideal), I measured a range of 1-1.4 mW/cm^2 (see below) across several measurements using an accurate spectroradiometer. These companies use solar meters that skew readings, making them NOT accurate!
Irradiance from Red Lights on a Top Selling Cheap Chinese Gemstone PEMF Mat (this one retailed for around $2000!)
Measurement 1: 1.08 mW/cm^2
Measurement 2: 1.27 mW/cm^2
Measurement 3: 1.27 mW/cm^2
Measurement 4: 1.35 mW/cm^2
Measurement 5: 1.35 mW/cm^2
Just for fun, I compared this to cheap Christmas tree lights I purchased from Amazon. What I found was that the irradiance (brightness) of the Christmas lights was just barely a little less than that of the Chinese mat. Like the Christmas tree lights, these cheap Chinese mats are only suitable for decoration, and not therapeutic at all!
Irradiance from Christmas Tree Lights
Measurement 1: .950 mW/cm^2
Measurement 2: 1.18 mW/cm^2
[1] Refer, for example, to the book Low-Level Light Therapy: Photobiomodulation. Hamblin, M, et al. (2018). Society of Photo-Optical Instrumentation Engineers (SPIE). Page 10: "Assuming that the reported parameters can be trusted, studies of beam irradiance report successful tissue repair and anti-inflammatory effects from 5–50 mW/cm2 at the target tissue depth [29-31].
Total Optical Power = Area of Coverage (Not Good!!)
Besides having an irradiance that is therapeutically ineffective, all these Chinese LED mats are tiny, with no beam angle or distance to spread the light (like you can with red light panels and beds). Combine this with the fact that they don't use many LED bulbs, and you end up with LED lights that are pretty much useless and just decorative. For example, on a popular Chinese gemstone PEMF brand that is around $2000 (their so-called top of the line) that used 60 LED bulbs (think 60 little pin pricks of light), when I measured the total area of light on the ENTIRE MAT, it ended up being a 1.5 x 1 inch square <shown here next to a quarter>. That is LESS than the area of two quarters!! It is borderline comical to think this is red light therapy. Good red light panels and beds have not only much higher irradiance (ideally at least 30-35 mW/cm^2 six inches away), but they also cover a much larger area (ideally your whole body), which translates into more optical power (power = irradiance x area of coverage). It is essential to note that you must have bare skin next to the red lights. I have, sadly, seen clinics with these mats and people lying on them, wearing clothes that block the already minuscule amount of red light. Conclusion: The red light therapy on ALL these cheap Chinese mats that have red light is provably a gimmick and is not much better, if at all, than a Christmas tree light decoration.
Besides having an irradiance that is therapeutically ineffective, all these Chinese LED mats are tiny, with no beam angle or distance to spread the light (like you can with red light panels and beds). Combine this with the fact that they don't use many LED bulbs, and you end up with LED lights that are pretty much useless and just decorative. For example, on a popular Chinese gemstone PEMF brand that is around $2000 (their so-called top of the line) that used 60 LED bulbs (think 60 little pin pricks of light), when I measured the total area of light on the ENTIRE MAT, it ended up being a 1.5 x 1 inch square <shown here next to a quarter>. That is LESS than the area of two quarters!! It is borderline comical to think this is red light therapy. Good red light panels and beds have not only much higher irradiance (ideally at least 30-35 mW/cm^2 six inches away), but they also cover a much larger area (ideally your whole body), which translates into more optical power (power = irradiance x area of coverage). It is essential to note that you must have bare skin next to the red lights. I have, sadly, seen clinics with these mats and people lying on them, wearing clothes that block the already minuscule amount of red light. Conclusion: The red light therapy on ALL these cheap Chinese mats that have red light is provably a gimmick and is not much better, if at all, than a Christmas tree light decoration.
Reason #7 Not to Buy: The Cheap Crystals Scam
Anyone knowledgeable in real gemstone therapy knows that you need high-clarity, pure crystals with minimal contaminants that are properly cut to be therapeutic. The crystals in these inexpensive Chinese gemstone PEMF mats are of the lowest quality, as evidenced by their tendency to tear and the crystals falling out (a common negative review I have seen is that the crystals start leaking out due to poor stitching). Even worse, these crystals are heavy, hard, uncomfortable, and bulky, making the Chinese gemstone PEMF full-body mats weigh over 30 pounds (some up to 40), and they are extremely uncomfortable to lie on. Many elderly and physically challenged individuals who have been deceived into purchasing these mats have complained about the difficulty in moving them due to their bulky size and weight. I have even seen some of these companies claiming they are portable and easy to carry - that is absurd!!
I was able to find the amethyst used in these mats on Alibaba, and as you can see, you can get them for $3.50 per kilogram. That is 2.2 pounds for $3.50. This is the lowest grade Amethyst and a far cry from real gemstone therapy, as these are neither high in clarity nor properly cut (they are all low in clarity/cloudy, and rough - not cut). All the gemstones in these mats are just marketing glitz and glimmer, and like the right light therapy, are just for decoration. I tell people it is like adding attractive gravel to a PEMF mat; all it does is make it harder/more uncomfortable, heavier, more cumbersome, and bulkier. And remember, you cannot get negative ions from crystals either, so the whole thing is not just marketing hype; it is an outright scam. If might look pretty, like the gimmicky "rainbow chakra PEMF mats", but if you want decoration, I recommend buying real art!
Anyone knowledgeable in real gemstone therapy knows that you need high-clarity, pure crystals with minimal contaminants that are properly cut to be therapeutic. The crystals in these inexpensive Chinese gemstone PEMF mats are of the lowest quality, as evidenced by their tendency to tear and the crystals falling out (a common negative review I have seen is that the crystals start leaking out due to poor stitching). Even worse, these crystals are heavy, hard, uncomfortable, and bulky, making the Chinese gemstone PEMF full-body mats weigh over 30 pounds (some up to 40), and they are extremely uncomfortable to lie on. Many elderly and physically challenged individuals who have been deceived into purchasing these mats have complained about the difficulty in moving them due to their bulky size and weight. I have even seen some of these companies claiming they are portable and easy to carry - that is absurd!!
I was able to find the amethyst used in these mats on Alibaba, and as you can see, you can get them for $3.50 per kilogram. That is 2.2 pounds for $3.50. This is the lowest grade Amethyst and a far cry from real gemstone therapy, as these are neither high in clarity nor properly cut (they are all low in clarity/cloudy, and rough - not cut). All the gemstones in these mats are just marketing glitz and glimmer, and like the right light therapy, are just for decoration. I tell people it is like adding attractive gravel to a PEMF mat; all it does is make it harder/more uncomfortable, heavier, more cumbersome, and bulkier. And remember, you cannot get negative ions from crystals either, so the whole thing is not just marketing hype; it is an outright scam. If might look pretty, like the gimmicky "rainbow chakra PEMF mats", but if you want decoration, I recommend buying real art!
Reason #8 Not to Buy: The Multi-therapy Scam - Layers and Layers of Gimmicks!!
One of the big marketing points of these cheap mats is that they offer multiple therapies all in one mat, with, in some cases, up to 21 "claimed" layers of benefits. I have dissected 12 of these mats, and I can tell you they are layers of gimmicks, not therapy. And the one company claiming up to 21 layers, I only counted nine layers.
However many layers they have, there is nothing of substance at all. We have already talked about some of these layers: The crystals, the red light, the far infrared, and the PEMF, but they market other ridiculous layers like yellow mud to boost negative ions, a charcoal layer to boost energy, copper woven fabric, and a foil layer to lower EMF[1], and more. We have discussed how harmful the crystals, red light, PEMF, and far infrared are, but remember: there are zero measured negative ions, so the extra layers "claiming" to boost negative ions just add to the negative-ion hoax. Some of the other claimed layers are basically just sheets of fabric holding everything together, which hardly qualifies as therapy. These extra layers are like cheap kids' breakfast cereal "toy inside" or crackerjack "prizes". They use these gimmicks to create a bunch of green check marks on their phony review sites, making it sound like you get all these great therapies at once, when in reality, when you sift through the gimmicks, you get the worst PEMF signal in the industry!
[1] The foil layer did appear to lower EMF, but it definitely did not remove it as there were still high levels of 60 Hz electric fields, and dirty electricity electrosmog. While none of these mats were good, some were worse than others. Feel free to call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124 and I can share more details.
One of the big marketing points of these cheap mats is that they offer multiple therapies all in one mat, with, in some cases, up to 21 "claimed" layers of benefits. I have dissected 12 of these mats, and I can tell you they are layers of gimmicks, not therapy. And the one company claiming up to 21 layers, I only counted nine layers.
However many layers they have, there is nothing of substance at all. We have already talked about some of these layers: The crystals, the red light, the far infrared, and the PEMF, but they market other ridiculous layers like yellow mud to boost negative ions, a charcoal layer to boost energy, copper woven fabric, and a foil layer to lower EMF[1], and more. We have discussed how harmful the crystals, red light, PEMF, and far infrared are, but remember: there are zero measured negative ions, so the extra layers "claiming" to boost negative ions just add to the negative-ion hoax. Some of the other claimed layers are basically just sheets of fabric holding everything together, which hardly qualifies as therapy. These extra layers are like cheap kids' breakfast cereal "toy inside" or crackerjack "prizes". They use these gimmicks to create a bunch of green check marks on their phony review sites, making it sound like you get all these great therapies at once, when in reality, when you sift through the gimmicks, you get the worst PEMF signal in the industry!
[1] The foil layer did appear to lower EMF, but it definitely did not remove it as there were still high levels of 60 Hz electric fields, and dirty electricity electrosmog. While none of these mats were good, some were worse than others. Feel free to call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124 and I can share more details.
Reason #9 Not to Buy: Poor EMF Shielding and Measurable Electric Field Dirty Electricity
Along with pulsing 60 Hz, it is also a measurable fact that these cheap Chinese gemstone mats have a detectable electric field, dirty electricity. While they do have a Faraday layer on most of these mats, it does not work all that well. Additionally, all of these mats I tested have live wires going into the mat, EVEN WHEN IT IS TURNED OFF! This is akin to lying on a live power cord or placing your hand next to a wall socket with minimal shielding. I have measured dirty electric fields on these well above 100 V/m and as high as 500 V/m!! Alpha Lab’s manual on their popular Trifield meter states you want to be below 50 V/m. And for anyone who has doubts, buy a Trifield meter and see for yourself if you have one of these mats. Put it on the electric field setting, and you'll see!
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that these cheap Chinese mats always have a live wire, even when the mat is turned off, or the far infrared function is off. Some people ask me, after I explain how bad the PEMF is in these mats, whether they can use the mats with the PEMF turned off and only use the far infrared. I tell them that if they want my advice, they should stop using the mat altogether, because even the "far infrared only" setting has elevated levels of 60 Hz Electric Field and dirty electricity. This leads to a significant amount of EMF exposure for people who use longer sessions of only far infrared (or both), typically 3-6-12 hours.
Along with pulsing 60 Hz, it is also a measurable fact that these cheap Chinese gemstone mats have a detectable electric field, dirty electricity. While they do have a Faraday layer on most of these mats, it does not work all that well. Additionally, all of these mats I tested have live wires going into the mat, EVEN WHEN IT IS TURNED OFF! This is akin to lying on a live power cord or placing your hand next to a wall socket with minimal shielding. I have measured dirty electric fields on these well above 100 V/m and as high as 500 V/m!! Alpha Lab’s manual on their popular Trifield meter states you want to be below 50 V/m. And for anyone who has doubts, buy a Trifield meter and see for yourself if you have one of these mats. Put it on the electric field setting, and you'll see!
Perhaps the biggest problem of all is that these cheap Chinese mats always have a live wire, even when the mat is turned off, or the far infrared function is off. Some people ask me, after I explain how bad the PEMF is in these mats, whether they can use the mats with the PEMF turned off and only use the far infrared. I tell them that if they want my advice, they should stop using the mat altogether, because even the "far infrared only" setting has elevated levels of 60 Hz Electric Field and dirty electricity. This leads to a significant amount of EMF exposure for people who use longer sessions of only far infrared (or both), typically 3-6-12 hours.
The Big Problem of Exposure
I have conducted PEMF consultations with over 4,000 people, and among them, I have spoken to dozens who use these Chinese gemstone PEMF mats for many hours a day and even sleep on them overnight. In fact, these companies even recommend sleeping on it, as indicated in their user manuals. Exposure to 60 Hz and dirty electricity is a problem when people lie on these mats for extended periods, such as for many hours or overnight. This is the same problem as sleeping with electric blankets (there are correlation studies linking electric blankets to increased risk for cancer) [32]. Small amounts of dirty electricity are never ideal, but usually not harmful unless you are overly sensitive. But when you sleep on these unhealthy energies or use them for many hours a day, day after day, over years, you put yourself at risk for cancer and other health problems we looked at in chapter 8. Exposure to 60 Hz, Dirty electricity, and electrosmog in general is cumulative, according to EMF expert Martin Blank, PhD [33].
I have conducted PEMF consultations with over 4,000 people, and among them, I have spoken to dozens who use these Chinese gemstone PEMF mats for many hours a day and even sleep on them overnight. In fact, these companies even recommend sleeping on it, as indicated in their user manuals. Exposure to 60 Hz and dirty electricity is a problem when people lie on these mats for extended periods, such as for many hours or overnight. This is the same problem as sleeping with electric blankets (there are correlation studies linking electric blankets to increased risk for cancer) [32]. Small amounts of dirty electricity are never ideal, but usually not harmful unless you are overly sensitive. But when you sleep on these unhealthy energies or use them for many hours a day, day after day, over years, you put yourself at risk for cancer and other health problems we looked at in chapter 8. Exposure to 60 Hz, Dirty electricity, and electrosmog in general is cumulative, according to EMF expert Martin Blank, PhD [33].
Reason #10 Not to Buy: They Are Way Overpriced!
The final reason not to buy these garbage Chinese PEMF mats is that they are overpriced. The evidence that they are so cheap is easy to see with a quick search on Alibaba, where you'll find the same mats marketed in the U.S. and abroad for a fraction of the price. See the image here of a mat I purchased directly from Alibaba for $109 + tax, which is essentially the SAME mat as a heavily marketed, Chinese-manufactured mat sold for upwards of $1000 or more! Same four frequency settings, same coils, same mat, except the controllers look a little different (but everything is the same). If you do extensive searching on Alibaba, as I have, you can find mats that match or are remarkably close to all the name brands and companies that rebrand, market, and see these cheap Chinese gemstone "PEMF" mats.
The final reason not to buy these garbage Chinese PEMF mats is that they are overpriced. The evidence that they are so cheap is easy to see with a quick search on Alibaba, where you'll find the same mats marketed in the U.S. and abroad for a fraction of the price. See the image here of a mat I purchased directly from Alibaba for $109 + tax, which is essentially the SAME mat as a heavily marketed, Chinese-manufactured mat sold for upwards of $1000 or more! Same four frequency settings, same coils, same mat, except the controllers look a little different (but everything is the same). If you do extensive searching on Alibaba, as I have, you can find mats that match or are remarkably close to all the name brands and companies that rebrand, market, and see these cheap Chinese gemstone "PEMF" mats.
Conclusion - BUYER BEWARE
In this section, we have looked at 10 reasons why you absolutely DON'T want to buy or use any of these cheap Chinese crystal mats. Sadly, these mats are flooding the PEMF marketplace like a virus, and it is becoming a pandemic that is infecting the entire PEMF industry. I am seeing new companies pop up almost every month selling these Chinese mats because there is so much PROFIT! Again, look on Alibaba for "PEMF" and you will see page after page of these cheap gemstone PEMF mats for a tiny fraction of the cost of what is sold in the U.S. and abroad. Remember this buyers' guide tip - there are ZERO, ZILCH, ZILPO, NADA, NIL GOOD PEMF Therapy mats that have crystals or gemstones in them. NOT ONE[1]! I tell people that if the PEMF mat has crystals, gemstones, and claims to also have far infrared and negative ions, then RUN! JUST RUN! Literally anything is better than these mats, which are the worst of the worst in all of PEMF!
And don't believe bogus review sites owned by the very companies that rank one of these cheap mats #1. Also, remember that any influencer promoting these cheap PEMF mats is paid to do so. If they truly understood PEMF and took the time to thoroughly dissect and test these mats, no credible expert in their right mind would recommend them, as none of them has a single redeeming quality. Again, remember in the PEMF industry: Crystal or Gemstones = Junk!
[1] At the time of publishing this book. If you have any doubts, never don't hesitate calling me for a free consultation 941-928-0124.
In this section, we have looked at 10 reasons why you absolutely DON'T want to buy or use any of these cheap Chinese crystal mats. Sadly, these mats are flooding the PEMF marketplace like a virus, and it is becoming a pandemic that is infecting the entire PEMF industry. I am seeing new companies pop up almost every month selling these Chinese mats because there is so much PROFIT! Again, look on Alibaba for "PEMF" and you will see page after page of these cheap gemstone PEMF mats for a tiny fraction of the cost of what is sold in the U.S. and abroad. Remember this buyers' guide tip - there are ZERO, ZILCH, ZILPO, NADA, NIL GOOD PEMF Therapy mats that have crystals or gemstones in them. NOT ONE[1]! I tell people that if the PEMF mat has crystals, gemstones, and claims to also have far infrared and negative ions, then RUN! JUST RUN! Literally anything is better than these mats, which are the worst of the worst in all of PEMF!
And don't believe bogus review sites owned by the very companies that rank one of these cheap mats #1. Also, remember that any influencer promoting these cheap PEMF mats is paid to do so. If they truly understood PEMF and took the time to thoroughly dissect and test these mats, no credible expert in their right mind would recommend them, as none of them has a single redeeming quality. Again, remember in the PEMF industry: Crystal or Gemstones = Junk!
[1] At the time of publishing this book. If you have any doubts, never don't hesitate calling me for a free consultation 941-928-0124.
Chapter 11:
Other Considerations When Shopping for a PEMF Device
The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
— Benjamin Franklin
In this chapter, we will go through a few extra buyers' guide tips in addition to all the key features we have been discussing in this book. We will look at which accessories to look for and which to avoid (and save money). We'll discuss the important difference between price and value, and what you should save up for quality rather than settle for cheap. And we'll explore other important considerations such as a money-back guarantee, a solid warranty with no scammy "fine print", the importance of good customer service, ease of usage and comfort, FDA registration, quality construction, and more! This is a very pragmatic and important chapter to read and carefully ponder while you are shopping for a good PEMF device. Let's start by looking at the essential accessories you want with your PEMF machine, and which gimmicky accessories you can avoid to save money (and time).
PEMF companies and energy medicine companies in general are notorious for offering a wide array of accessories and upsells. While some upsells are worth the extra expense, many are either mediocre items that other companies make better or outright gimmicks with no place in a brochure. The key point I instruct people when buying a PEMF device (or any energy medicine equipment) is to focus on what the company is known for and pass on items they are not known for.
Necessary Components and Accessories
Every full-body PEMF device I have tried will come with at least a control unit, a power supply, and at least one full-body mat. Usually, most full-body PEMF devices also include (but not always) at least one or more local applicators. The first, most obvious accessory to add is a local applicator or additional local applicators. Ideally, you want a couple of local applicators to cover both larger and smaller areas, and having a local applicator with a Helmholz coil arrangement is definitely a plus and absolutely worth getting. Another good accessory is a good far-infrared heating option with low EMF, which is both pampering and therapeutic. When I say "GOOD," I mean using carbon fiber heating elements like those found in good infrared saunas. All the cheap Chinese gemstone mats use cheap silicone wire and produce measurable dirty electricity in the electric field. As I mentioned in the last chapter, at the time of this publication, only two PEMF companies make quality PEMF with high-quality far-infrared.
Now, there are a lot of accessories I recommend passing on, mainly because PEMF companies are known for their PEMF, not other energy medicine modalities. Usually, you can get these options with better quality from companies that specialize in these accessories. For example, if you want good red light therapy, but from a quality red light therapy company. If you want a good light-and-sound brain entrainment system, also buy from a company that specializes in THAT. Hopefully that makes sense. So, for which accessories to avoid, I thought it would be easier to put it in a bullet-point/list format.
Unnecessary Gimmicks or Best to Pass[1]
[1] If you are confused, feel free to call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124 to avoid making a potentially expensive mistake!
Other Considerations When Shopping for a PEMF Device
The bitterness of poor quality remains long after the sweetness of low price is forgotten.
— Benjamin Franklin
In this chapter, we will go through a few extra buyers' guide tips in addition to all the key features we have been discussing in this book. We will look at which accessories to look for and which to avoid (and save money). We'll discuss the important difference between price and value, and what you should save up for quality rather than settle for cheap. And we'll explore other important considerations such as a money-back guarantee, a solid warranty with no scammy "fine print", the importance of good customer service, ease of usage and comfort, FDA registration, quality construction, and more! This is a very pragmatic and important chapter to read and carefully ponder while you are shopping for a good PEMF device. Let's start by looking at the essential accessories you want with your PEMF machine, and which gimmicky accessories you can avoid to save money (and time).
PEMF companies and energy medicine companies in general are notorious for offering a wide array of accessories and upsells. While some upsells are worth the extra expense, many are either mediocre items that other companies make better or outright gimmicks with no place in a brochure. The key point I instruct people when buying a PEMF device (or any energy medicine equipment) is to focus on what the company is known for and pass on items they are not known for.
Necessary Components and Accessories
Every full-body PEMF device I have tried will come with at least a control unit, a power supply, and at least one full-body mat. Usually, most full-body PEMF devices also include (but not always) at least one or more local applicators. The first, most obvious accessory to add is a local applicator or additional local applicators. Ideally, you want a couple of local applicators to cover both larger and smaller areas, and having a local applicator with a Helmholz coil arrangement is definitely a plus and absolutely worth getting. Another good accessory is a good far-infrared heating option with low EMF, which is both pampering and therapeutic. When I say "GOOD," I mean using carbon fiber heating elements like those found in good infrared saunas. All the cheap Chinese gemstone mats use cheap silicone wire and produce measurable dirty electricity in the electric field. As I mentioned in the last chapter, at the time of this publication, only two PEMF companies make quality PEMF with high-quality far-infrared.
Now, there are a lot of accessories I recommend passing on, mainly because PEMF companies are known for their PEMF, not other energy medicine modalities. Usually, you can get these options with better quality from companies that specialize in these accessories. For example, if you want good red light therapy, but from a quality red light therapy company. If you want a good light-and-sound brain entrainment system, also buy from a company that specializes in THAT. Hopefully that makes sense. So, for which accessories to avoid, I thought it would be easier to put it in a bullet-point/list format.
Unnecessary Gimmicks or Best to Pass[1]
- Light and Sound Brain Entrainment Systems - Buy light and sound brain entrainment systems from companies that specialize in that.
- Biofeedback - Buy from a company that specializes in biofeedback.
- Pulse oximeters - Buy medical-grade from a medical supply place.
- PEMF Mats you can Sleep on - Totally unnecessary and potentially harmful if the device has measurable dirty electricity (like electric blanket studies showing risk of Leukemia). It turns out that good PEMF isn't something you need to sleep on all night, anyway.
- Red light therapy - Usually in Cheap Chinese Mats, but I have seen some quality PEMF companies try to include this. The problem is that the irradiance/power/brightness is WAY too low to be therapeutic.
- Crystals/Negative ions - Usually in Cheap Chinese Mats - This is a scam. As I explained in the last chapter, you CANNOT get negative ions from crystals. If you want negative ions, buy a good negative ion generator.
- Microcurrent Attachments - Many Cheap Chinese Mats have microcurrent add-ons! What's worse than 60 Hz magnetic fields? Ans: 60 Hz direct current!!
- Rife Machine companies are selling PEMF add-ons. Here, the gimmick is PEMF. You do NOT want high-frequency RIFE in PEMF. My experience with RIFE machine companies trying to include PEMF is that they use POOR slew-rate sine waves, too-high frequencies, and poorly engineered, ineffective coils.
- Smartphone options that add Bluetooth electrosmog.
- Avoid any PEMF device that is powered by a PHONE = electrosmog and ineffective.
- All voice-activated features are total gimmicks with no research to back them up.
- Expensive Chairs, Beds, and setups claiming multiple therapies like PEMF + Vibroacoustic + Far Infrared + Oxygen or Molecular Hydrogen + etc. Often, when you add up the costs of the therapies, it is MUCH less to buy them separately.
[1] If you are confused, feel free to call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124 to avoid making a potentially expensive mistake!
PEMF DEVICE and Applicators Assembled with Strict Quality Standards?
The quality of a PEMF device's manufacturing and assembly is pivotal for ensuring its longevity, dependability, and optimal performance over time. In the assessment of PEMF devices, we must consider various aspects of assembly quality:
Materials: Opt for PEMF devices made from robust, durable materials. These materials are crucial for withstanding heavy use and ensuring a long service life.
Electronic Components and Engineering: Ensure that the bed’s electrical elements, power units, and control mechanisms are procured from established manufacturers and designed to exact specifications, using high-lifecycle components to meet the rigors of both home and commercial use. See Chapter 9 for more details on proper engineering.
Assembly Process: The PEMF device should be assembled using precision-driven manufacturing practices and stringent quality control protocols to ensure uniform performance and minimize the risk of defects or operational failures.
Regulatory Compliance: The PEMF device must adhere to pertinent industry standards and regulations, which affirms its safety and performance efficacy.
Testing and Certification: The PEMF device should undergo exhaustive testing during assembly and before shipment. Slew rate tests with the proper equipment should be conducted across the entire mat to verify uniform coverage, and also above the mat to verify penetration depth. All this ensures both a high slew rate across and within the whole body, AND shows there are no unwanted electrosmog frequencies.
The quality of a PEMF device's manufacturing and assembly is pivotal for ensuring its longevity, dependability, and optimal performance over time. In the assessment of PEMF devices, we must consider various aspects of assembly quality:
Materials: Opt for PEMF devices made from robust, durable materials. These materials are crucial for withstanding heavy use and ensuring a long service life.
Electronic Components and Engineering: Ensure that the bed’s electrical elements, power units, and control mechanisms are procured from established manufacturers and designed to exact specifications, using high-lifecycle components to meet the rigors of both home and commercial use. See Chapter 9 for more details on proper engineering.
Assembly Process: The PEMF device should be assembled using precision-driven manufacturing practices and stringent quality control protocols to ensure uniform performance and minimize the risk of defects or operational failures.
Regulatory Compliance: The PEMF device must adhere to pertinent industry standards and regulations, which affirms its safety and performance efficacy.
Testing and Certification: The PEMF device should undergo exhaustive testing during assembly and before shipment. Slew rate tests with the proper equipment should be conducted across the entire mat to verify uniform coverage, and also above the mat to verify penetration depth. All this ensures both a high slew rate across and within the whole body, AND shows there are no unwanted electrosmog frequencies.
Price and Value
(Not the Cheapest but the Best Value/Dollar)
Another critical factor to consider is price, and it is helpful to understand the justification for the retail cost of PEMF therapy products for home and/or business use. A thorough examination of the PEMF market reveals numerous ultra-cheap options (i.e., all the Chinese gemstone mats) and a few excessively priced options ($40,000+). We do not need to invest more than $5000-$6000 in any PEMF device[1]. There is a saying: "If you buy cheap, you buy twice." Therefore, look for a quality PEMF device with a high-slew-rate, the correct repetition rates, good coils, low EMF, a good warranty, excellent training, and support. Especially avoid anything coming from China! Your time and your life are too precious, so don't settle for cheap PEMF devices that waste both[2].
Ensuring a PEMF device is comfortable, flexible, and easy to use is also essential, as it is more likely to be used. If a PEMF mat is hard and uncomfortable, like the Chinese crystal PEMF mats, it's less enjoyable, and you are less likely to use something that isn't cozy to lie on. Flexible coils are essential so you can put your whole-body mat on a bed or couch without worrying about the coils.
Finally, a PEMF device should be simple and easy to use while still containing enough functionality to do the job right. If you have a high-slew-rate square wave with good coils, the good news is you don't need much more in the control unit. All that is required is a way to control the repetition rate, frequencies, time, and intensity. To make this even more straightforward, a good PEMF company will offer fast-start programs with repetition rates already programmed to match your circadian rhythms, such as energizing beta frequencies in the morning and relaxing theta and delta at night, as we discussed in Chapter 7.
[1] Unless you are a clinic looking for solely high-intensity and symptomatic relief.
[2] If see a low cost PEMF, and you are unsure if the device is coming from China or cheaply made please call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124. I am here to help!
(Not the Cheapest but the Best Value/Dollar)
Another critical factor to consider is price, and it is helpful to understand the justification for the retail cost of PEMF therapy products for home and/or business use. A thorough examination of the PEMF market reveals numerous ultra-cheap options (i.e., all the Chinese gemstone mats) and a few excessively priced options ($40,000+). We do not need to invest more than $5000-$6000 in any PEMF device[1]. There is a saying: "If you buy cheap, you buy twice." Therefore, look for a quality PEMF device with a high-slew-rate, the correct repetition rates, good coils, low EMF, a good warranty, excellent training, and support. Especially avoid anything coming from China! Your time and your life are too precious, so don't settle for cheap PEMF devices that waste both[2].
Ensuring a PEMF device is comfortable, flexible, and easy to use is also essential, as it is more likely to be used. If a PEMF mat is hard and uncomfortable, like the Chinese crystal PEMF mats, it's less enjoyable, and you are less likely to use something that isn't cozy to lie on. Flexible coils are essential so you can put your whole-body mat on a bed or couch without worrying about the coils.
Finally, a PEMF device should be simple and easy to use while still containing enough functionality to do the job right. If you have a high-slew-rate square wave with good coils, the good news is you don't need much more in the control unit. All that is required is a way to control the repetition rate, frequencies, time, and intensity. To make this even more straightforward, a good PEMF company will offer fast-start programs with repetition rates already programmed to match your circadian rhythms, such as energizing beta frequencies in the morning and relaxing theta and delta at night, as we discussed in Chapter 7.
[1] Unless you are a clinic looking for solely high-intensity and symptomatic relief.
[2] If see a low cost PEMF, and you are unsure if the device is coming from China or cheaply made please call me for a free consultation 941-928-0124. I am here to help!
Does the Device Have a Solid Warranty?
The warranty provision is another crucial aspect that should spark our inquiries. A thorough warranty and efficient customer support are indispensable for resolving potential issues, offering assurance and safeguarding our investment, and providing peace of mind. You should review the specifics of any warranty, including the most minute details (read the fine print). At a minimum, there should be a comprehensive warranty of 3 to 4 years that covers any potential malfunctions. Some companies have limited warranties, so make sure to get a PEMF device with a full "bumper to bumper" warranty that covers everything!
**DO NOT BUY USED EQUIPMENT ON EBAY**
One final note: a warning about buying used PEMF devices on eBay. I strongly discourage purchasing any PEMF device, new or used, on eBay for several reasons. First, you will have no warranty, so if something happens, it will be a total loss of your investment. Second, you receive no training or support for using the device. Thirdly, if it is used, you have no idea how well the previous owner took care of it (there are no CarFax reports for used PEMF devices). And finally, there are many bait-and-switch scams on eBay, making it overall a perilous and unsafe place to purchase any PEMF or energy medicine device. The same goes for any other platforms selling used energy medicine equipment. Save your money by buying new from a reputable company that offers a solid warranty, a money-back guarantee, and comprehensive customer service, training, and support.
The warranty provision is another crucial aspect that should spark our inquiries. A thorough warranty and efficient customer support are indispensable for resolving potential issues, offering assurance and safeguarding our investment, and providing peace of mind. You should review the specifics of any warranty, including the most minute details (read the fine print). At a minimum, there should be a comprehensive warranty of 3 to 4 years that covers any potential malfunctions. Some companies have limited warranties, so make sure to get a PEMF device with a full "bumper to bumper" warranty that covers everything!
**DO NOT BUY USED EQUIPMENT ON EBAY**
One final note: a warning about buying used PEMF devices on eBay. I strongly discourage purchasing any PEMF device, new or used, on eBay for several reasons. First, you will have no warranty, so if something happens, it will be a total loss of your investment. Second, you receive no training or support for using the device. Thirdly, if it is used, you have no idea how well the previous owner took care of it (there are no CarFax reports for used PEMF devices). And finally, there are many bait-and-switch scams on eBay, making it overall a perilous and unsafe place to purchase any PEMF or energy medicine device. The same goes for any other platforms selling used energy medicine equipment. Save your money by buying new from a reputable company that offers a solid warranty, a money-back guarantee, and comprehensive customer service, training, and support.
Does the Company offer a Trial Period or Return Policy?
Overall, a return/refund policy shows you - the consumer - that the PEMF company believes and stands behind their product. Obviously, you still need a quality PEMF device with a high-slew rate, good coils, etc., but a satisfaction guarantee should be an important ingredient on your checklist of things to look for in a PEMF company. A trial period with a reasonable restocking fee is acceptable for high end PEMF devices. One caveat is that the Cheap Chinese gemstone PEMF mats can offer you the world in terms of guarantees and warranties BECAUSE they are so cheap that if one is returned, they hardly lose anything, even if they just throw them away. So, a return policy is by no means the most important thing to look for, but once you establish that a PEMF device is of good quality with a good slew rate, etc., demand both a good warranty and a money-back guarantee!
Also, this return policy should make the duties and responsibilities of both parties clear to avoid misunderstandings and disagreements. It will also enable customers to find answers to their return-related queries on your website, saving you time answering questions via email or phone. We have found some scams; for example, the fine print on one of these cheap Chinese gemstone mats ONLY offers a money-back guarantee for NON-SALE pricing. The scam is that they almost always have their device on sale!
So even if the company offers a trial period or money-back guarantee, make sure to read the fine print. But it is essential that you buy from a PEMF company that has a return policy!
Overall, a return/refund policy shows you - the consumer - that the PEMF company believes and stands behind their product. Obviously, you still need a quality PEMF device with a high-slew rate, good coils, etc., but a satisfaction guarantee should be an important ingredient on your checklist of things to look for in a PEMF company. A trial period with a reasonable restocking fee is acceptable for high end PEMF devices. One caveat is that the Cheap Chinese gemstone PEMF mats can offer you the world in terms of guarantees and warranties BECAUSE they are so cheap that if one is returned, they hardly lose anything, even if they just throw them away. So, a return policy is by no means the most important thing to look for, but once you establish that a PEMF device is of good quality with a good slew rate, etc., demand both a good warranty and a money-back guarantee!
Also, this return policy should make the duties and responsibilities of both parties clear to avoid misunderstandings and disagreements. It will also enable customers to find answers to their return-related queries on your website, saving you time answering questions via email or phone. We have found some scams; for example, the fine print on one of these cheap Chinese gemstone mats ONLY offers a money-back guarantee for NON-SALE pricing. The scam is that they almost always have their device on sale!
So even if the company offers a trial period or money-back guarantee, make sure to read the fine print. But it is essential that you buy from a PEMF company that has a return policy!
FDA Registration and Clearance
It is imperative that you inquire whether both the company and its assembly manufacturer are registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and if the product itself has received FDA clearance. We should always request tangible proof of active FDA registration and take the initiative to verify this information in the official FDA database, as there are instances in which companies and products claim certain things yet lack the necessary registrations and clearances.
This inquiry is crucial because a company’s FDA registration and product clearance, along with other safety and quality certifications, demonstrate its compliance with relevant regulatory standards. It also highlights that the product has gained endorsements from authoritative bodies, ensuring its safety and effectiveness for users. By simply confirming their status, we’re taking an informed, proactive step to verify the legitimacy and compliance of the product and the company behind it, ultimately safeguarding your investment and the well-being of end-users
It is imperative that you inquire whether both the company and its assembly manufacturer are registered with the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), and if the product itself has received FDA clearance. We should always request tangible proof of active FDA registration and take the initiative to verify this information in the official FDA database, as there are instances in which companies and products claim certain things yet lack the necessary registrations and clearances.
This inquiry is crucial because a company’s FDA registration and product clearance, along with other safety and quality certifications, demonstrate its compliance with relevant regulatory standards. It also highlights that the product has gained endorsements from authoritative bodies, ensuring its safety and effectiveness for users. By simply confirming their status, we’re taking an informed, proactive step to verify the legitimacy and compliance of the product and the company behind it, ultimately safeguarding your investment and the well-being of end-users
High End Customer Service, Training, and Support
Along with having an effective PEMF device with a high-slew rate that is comfortable and easy to use, it is also essential to have guidance, experienced training, and support on how to use a PEMF device to achieve the best results. While good PEMF devices can be easy to use, the question of dosage or dosimetry remains. That is, how many times a day, for how long, and at what intensity or repetition rate frequency. Having experienced, competent support will ensure you get results with a good PEMF device.
Sadly, many of the cheap PEMF mats, especially the Chinese crystal mats sold online and on Amazon or eBay, are not only cheap and ineffective devices, but you also don't get good service and support, sometimes none at all! We have talked to many people who have purchased a top-selling, cheap crystal PEMF mat, and not only did they not answer the phone, but they also weren't answering emails! Many companies spend time with you on the sales side, but once you purchase, there is little or no support. For PEMF devices sold through MLM, support depends on the person you buy from, so make sure to work with someone committed, not just someone doing PEMF as a side hobby. Another red flag is companies that sell online that have only email and contact forms, no phone numbers, and no real people to talk to. If this is all they have in the buying process, you can almost be guaranteed you will receive little, if any, support, so buyer beware! Trusted companies also provide real people, faces, and phone numbers! The bottom line is that it is worth paying more for a company that offers not only a great product but also top-notch service, training, and support.
Along with having an effective PEMF device with a high-slew rate that is comfortable and easy to use, it is also essential to have guidance, experienced training, and support on how to use a PEMF device to achieve the best results. While good PEMF devices can be easy to use, the question of dosage or dosimetry remains. That is, how many times a day, for how long, and at what intensity or repetition rate frequency. Having experienced, competent support will ensure you get results with a good PEMF device.
Sadly, many of the cheap PEMF mats, especially the Chinese crystal mats sold online and on Amazon or eBay, are not only cheap and ineffective devices, but you also don't get good service and support, sometimes none at all! We have talked to many people who have purchased a top-selling, cheap crystal PEMF mat, and not only did they not answer the phone, but they also weren't answering emails! Many companies spend time with you on the sales side, but once you purchase, there is little or no support. For PEMF devices sold through MLM, support depends on the person you buy from, so make sure to work with someone committed, not just someone doing PEMF as a side hobby. Another red flag is companies that sell online that have only email and contact forms, no phone numbers, and no real people to talk to. If this is all they have in the buying process, you can almost be guaranteed you will receive little, if any, support, so buyer beware! Trusted companies also provide real people, faces, and phone numbers! The bottom line is that it is worth paying more for a company that offers not only a great product but also top-notch service, training, and support.
Does the PEMF Company Have Business and Marketing Support?
PEMF Therapy has gained significant traction within the health and wellness sector, presenting numerous potential advantages for businesses and clients. A reputable PEMF company can guide business owners looking to offer and profit from PEMF services in clinics, spas, or wellness centers.
Also, because the benefits of PEMF come from daily, consistent use, having access to a good affiliate program allows business and affiliate marketers to earn significant side income if the affiliate percentages are generous. Too many companies either have no affiliate program or offer a measly 5% for referrals. Ideally, you would want an affiliate program that offers at least 10-20% per sale. For those looking to experience the daily benefits of PEMF, the most important thing is to get a good PEMF device. If it works for you and you recommend it to your friends and family, it is always nice to know you can earn generous rewards for your referrals.
PEMF Therapy has gained significant traction within the health and wellness sector, presenting numerous potential advantages for businesses and clients. A reputable PEMF company can guide business owners looking to offer and profit from PEMF services in clinics, spas, or wellness centers.
Also, because the benefits of PEMF come from daily, consistent use, having access to a good affiliate program allows business and affiliate marketers to earn significant side income if the affiliate percentages are generous. Too many companies either have no affiliate program or offer a measly 5% for referrals. Ideally, you would want an affiliate program that offers at least 10-20% per sale. For those looking to experience the daily benefits of PEMF, the most important thing is to get a good PEMF device. If it works for you and you recommend it to your friends and family, it is always nice to know you can earn generous rewards for your referrals.
Chapter 12
Conclusion
There’s not a day goes by that I don’t do PEMF.
― Tony Robbins, author of Life Force
Conclusion - What to Look for in a PEMF Device and What to Avoid!
In this PEMF buyers' guide, we reviewed a couple of dozen points to consider when selecting a PEMF device, along with many tips on what to avoid. While this guide is somewhat technical, I assure you that it is worthwhile if you are passionate about PEMF and want the best device. If you need extra help, you can call me for a free PEMF consultation at 941-928-0124.
I am passionate about PEMF because I have seen its benefits firsthand in myself and hundreds of others. The main takeaway from this buyers' guide is that slew rate is the most important standard for comparing PEMF devices—more critical than intensity or frequency. A high-quality full-body PEMF device should pair a high-slew-rate signal with large circular coils for full-body coverage, plus localized coils for targeted treatment. Besides slew rate and coil size, we discussed pulse duration, polarity, repetition rate, spectral content, and ensuring the device has low or no EMF. We also introduced the 3D slew rate plot (x, y, z, dB/dt) as a new method to describe PEMF mat efficacy, or at least state the slew rate at the surface of the mat and say four or six inches up for comparing not only slew rate but also penetration depth.
Our exploration into PEMF intensities revealed a powerful truth: medium intensities, ranging from 1-10 mT or 10-100 gauss, are overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. Over 3,200 PEMF studies confirm it—and it’s in this sweet spot that your body gets the greatest cellular response [1]. Another meta-analysis of the highest level of PEMF research should find that ALL the best PEMF studies used a medium intensity coupled with a sharp rise-and-fall signal (square or sharp sawtooth) [2,3]. Overall, research is clear that medium intensity is the sweet spot, or Goldilocks zone, for generating optimal slew rates that drive healing and regeneration. Beware: using the wrong intensities, whether too low or too high, weakens the results. Trust what rigorous research shows—medium intensity PEMF is where genuine, restorative change happens.
We also explored many myths surrounding high-intensity companies and influencers, such as Dr. Pawluk, who is perhaps the most prominent advocate of high intensity. For example, he misapplies the inverse-square law to PEMF, leading to significant errors for large coils (see Appendix B for a detailed exposé of this Bad Science, or B.S.). Moreover, his own citations and studies support the use of low- and medium-intensity PEMF over high-intensity PEMF. The key takeaway is that more studies and research support the use of low- and medium-intensity PEMF for healing and regeneration. I hope you appreciate the depth of research behind my conclusions and recommendations.
Having said that, high intensity PEMF does seem to work for pain relief, depression/anxiety, muscle stimulation, and a handful of conditions—IF it is done right. So, high-intensity PEMF has a place in a clinical setting, and you can certainly use it; however, it is costly to do it correctly. The main takeaway remains: according to actual research, medium-intensity PEMF with a high-slew-rate and good coils is the better approach for most, especially for home use, and is significantly less expensive ($2,500-$6000 vs $6,000-$40,000+).
It’s critical to recognize what you must avoid to protect your health and investment. Cheap Chinese gemstone PEMF mats dominate the market, but don’t be fooled: these products rely on basic 60 Hz power line pulsing—posing more risk than benefit. Studies warn that exposure to 60 Hz (and its associated dirty electricity) is linked to decreased melatonin levels and overall health decline. Don’t waste resources or gamble with your wellbeing. Refuse these mats and choose true PEMF technology that heals, not harms.
Conclusion
There’s not a day goes by that I don’t do PEMF.
― Tony Robbins, author of Life Force
Conclusion - What to Look for in a PEMF Device and What to Avoid!
In this PEMF buyers' guide, we reviewed a couple of dozen points to consider when selecting a PEMF device, along with many tips on what to avoid. While this guide is somewhat technical, I assure you that it is worthwhile if you are passionate about PEMF and want the best device. If you need extra help, you can call me for a free PEMF consultation at 941-928-0124.
I am passionate about PEMF because I have seen its benefits firsthand in myself and hundreds of others. The main takeaway from this buyers' guide is that slew rate is the most important standard for comparing PEMF devices—more critical than intensity or frequency. A high-quality full-body PEMF device should pair a high-slew-rate signal with large circular coils for full-body coverage, plus localized coils for targeted treatment. Besides slew rate and coil size, we discussed pulse duration, polarity, repetition rate, spectral content, and ensuring the device has low or no EMF. We also introduced the 3D slew rate plot (x, y, z, dB/dt) as a new method to describe PEMF mat efficacy, or at least state the slew rate at the surface of the mat and say four or six inches up for comparing not only slew rate but also penetration depth.
Our exploration into PEMF intensities revealed a powerful truth: medium intensities, ranging from 1-10 mT or 10-100 gauss, are overwhelmingly supported by scientific evidence. Over 3,200 PEMF studies confirm it—and it’s in this sweet spot that your body gets the greatest cellular response [1]. Another meta-analysis of the highest level of PEMF research should find that ALL the best PEMF studies used a medium intensity coupled with a sharp rise-and-fall signal (square or sharp sawtooth) [2,3]. Overall, research is clear that medium intensity is the sweet spot, or Goldilocks zone, for generating optimal slew rates that drive healing and regeneration. Beware: using the wrong intensities, whether too low or too high, weakens the results. Trust what rigorous research shows—medium intensity PEMF is where genuine, restorative change happens.
We also explored many myths surrounding high-intensity companies and influencers, such as Dr. Pawluk, who is perhaps the most prominent advocate of high intensity. For example, he misapplies the inverse-square law to PEMF, leading to significant errors for large coils (see Appendix B for a detailed exposé of this Bad Science, or B.S.). Moreover, his own citations and studies support the use of low- and medium-intensity PEMF over high-intensity PEMF. The key takeaway is that more studies and research support the use of low- and medium-intensity PEMF for healing and regeneration. I hope you appreciate the depth of research behind my conclusions and recommendations.
Having said that, high intensity PEMF does seem to work for pain relief, depression/anxiety, muscle stimulation, and a handful of conditions—IF it is done right. So, high-intensity PEMF has a place in a clinical setting, and you can certainly use it; however, it is costly to do it correctly. The main takeaway remains: according to actual research, medium-intensity PEMF with a high-slew-rate and good coils is the better approach for most, especially for home use, and is significantly less expensive ($2,500-$6000 vs $6,000-$40,000+).
It’s critical to recognize what you must avoid to protect your health and investment. Cheap Chinese gemstone PEMF mats dominate the market, but don’t be fooled: these products rely on basic 60 Hz power line pulsing—posing more risk than benefit. Studies warn that exposure to 60 Hz (and its associated dirty electricity) is linked to decreased melatonin levels and overall health decline. Don’t waste resources or gamble with your wellbeing. Refuse these mats and choose true PEMF technology that heals, not harms.
Crafting a genuine, high-quality PEMF device is both an art and a science. Demand large coils that enclose the whole body and deliver robust slew rates without electromagnetic noise. Only real engineering mastery can bring this to life—balancing voltage, current, resistance, capacitance, coil geometry, and more. Insist on devices that are carefully field-tested to guarantee magnetic slew rates meet therapeutic standards even at significant depths into the body. Choose nothing less than total coverage and measurable, real-world performance for your investment in health.
Imagine the difference between a virtuoso’s performance and an amateur’s; with PEMF, the distinction is just as profound. You don't hear the difference as you do with music, but your body feels it! The right medium intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF signal with low electrosmog, delivered through the best coils, can truly make your body, organs, and cells sing with glorious health, which changes your life profoundly for the better. If you are sick, PEMF can provide your body with the energy it needs to heal. If you are in pain, PEMF can shut off inflammation, giving you pain relief on par with morphine (but without the side effects). Even if you are healthy, PEMF is the ultimate preventative to both keep you healthy AND help you feel more energy, experience better sleep, improve mental function, and more! Demand PEMF technology that truly delivers health and healing you can feel. I want to conclude this book by giving you a new outlook on health, wellness, and aging (and how PEMF can help).
Imagine the difference between a virtuoso’s performance and an amateur’s; with PEMF, the distinction is just as profound. You don't hear the difference as you do with music, but your body feels it! The right medium intensity/high-slew-rate PEMF signal with low electrosmog, delivered through the best coils, can truly make your body, organs, and cells sing with glorious health, which changes your life profoundly for the better. If you are sick, PEMF can provide your body with the energy it needs to heal. If you are in pain, PEMF can shut off inflammation, giving you pain relief on par with morphine (but without the side effects). Even if you are healthy, PEMF is the ultimate preventative to both keep you healthy AND help you feel more energy, experience better sleep, improve mental function, and more! Demand PEMF technology that truly delivers health and healing you can feel. I want to conclude this book by giving you a new outlook on health, wellness, and aging (and how PEMF can help).
Increase Your Healthspan - PEMF Therapy is the Ultimate Anti-Aging Tool!
Most people have no idea how good their body is designed to feel.
– Kevin Trudeau
Consider the literal definition of health. The dictionary defines it as “the absence of injury, pain, or disease.” If we think about it, health is so much more than that – and it can be an evolving state. Even if we are disease and injury-free, we can still feel stronger and more energetic. We can increase our bioelectricity, which equates to better health, increased vitality, and ultimately a longer life.
When it comes to our health, improving overall vitality (and concurrently preventing illness) means making the right decisions about diet, activities, supplements, and modalities like PEMF and red light therapy, as well as our habits and lifestyle. Holistic health means treating the whole body rather than just a single condition or body system[1]. When we do this, we are using a holistic preventive medicine approach to not only stay healthy and vibrant but also potentially feel even more vigorous over time. There is a great quote by Josh Shipp that captures this vibe beautifully:
"You either get bitter, or you get better. It's that simple. You either take what has been dealt to you and allow it to make you a better person, or you allow it to tear you down. The choice does not belong to fate; it belongs to you."
Like a fine wine, we can age better. PEMF therapy is one way to help our body and biofield age better, along with a whole foods diet, good hydration, exercise and sleep, deep breathing and fresh air, sunshine, earthing, good posture, meditation, stress management, positive attitude, and other energy medicine modalities like red light therapy, whole body vibration, oxygen therapy, saunas, etc. (refer to the list at the end of chapter 13).
While there are many solid, beneficial holistic habits that can improve our overall health and well-being, hopefully we’re making a strong case that a daily whole body PEMF therapy session is one of the best holistic practices to invest in to help with not only pain and disease, but also to help reverse aging itself!
After 18 years of working with PEMF therapy, this book represents all the knowledge, wisdom, science, testing, and experience I have gained about which PEMF device is best to invest in for yourself and your family. My recommendations are all backed by research, physics, science, and extensive testing of over 40 PEMF mats. Hopefully, you will find this book helpful in your pursuit of the best PEMF device to invest in to fully optimize your healthspan, energy, and quality of life!
I wish you the very best in your own journey of healing and wellness[2].
In Health,
Bryant Meyers
[1] Which is why I recommend full body PEMF therapy mats.
[2] For more information check out my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/bryantmeyers. And again, call me for a free PEMF consultation 941-928-0124, PEMF is my passion so it's never a bother, and I am here to help!
Most people have no idea how good their body is designed to feel.
– Kevin Trudeau
Consider the literal definition of health. The dictionary defines it as “the absence of injury, pain, or disease.” If we think about it, health is so much more than that – and it can be an evolving state. Even if we are disease and injury-free, we can still feel stronger and more energetic. We can increase our bioelectricity, which equates to better health, increased vitality, and ultimately a longer life.
When it comes to our health, improving overall vitality (and concurrently preventing illness) means making the right decisions about diet, activities, supplements, and modalities like PEMF and red light therapy, as well as our habits and lifestyle. Holistic health means treating the whole body rather than just a single condition or body system[1]. When we do this, we are using a holistic preventive medicine approach to not only stay healthy and vibrant but also potentially feel even more vigorous over time. There is a great quote by Josh Shipp that captures this vibe beautifully:
"You either get bitter, or you get better. It's that simple. You either take what has been dealt to you and allow it to make you a better person, or you allow it to tear you down. The choice does not belong to fate; it belongs to you."
Like a fine wine, we can age better. PEMF therapy is one way to help our body and biofield age better, along with a whole foods diet, good hydration, exercise and sleep, deep breathing and fresh air, sunshine, earthing, good posture, meditation, stress management, positive attitude, and other energy medicine modalities like red light therapy, whole body vibration, oxygen therapy, saunas, etc. (refer to the list at the end of chapter 13).
While there are many solid, beneficial holistic habits that can improve our overall health and well-being, hopefully we’re making a strong case that a daily whole body PEMF therapy session is one of the best holistic practices to invest in to help with not only pain and disease, but also to help reverse aging itself!
After 18 years of working with PEMF therapy, this book represents all the knowledge, wisdom, science, testing, and experience I have gained about which PEMF device is best to invest in for yourself and your family. My recommendations are all backed by research, physics, science, and extensive testing of over 40 PEMF mats. Hopefully, you will find this book helpful in your pursuit of the best PEMF device to invest in to fully optimize your healthspan, energy, and quality of life!
I wish you the very best in your own journey of healing and wellness[2].
In Health,
Bryant Meyers
[1] Which is why I recommend full body PEMF therapy mats.
[2] For more information check out my youtube channel https://www.youtube.com/bryantmeyers. And again, call me for a free PEMF consultation 941-928-0124, PEMF is my passion so it's never a bother, and I am here to help!
References
(Organized Chapter By Chapter)
Introduction
[1] Griffiths DJ, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 5th ed, Cambridge University, 2024.
[2] Purcell EM, Morin DJ, Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed, Cambridge University, 2013.
Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M, Electromagnetism and Matter, Basic Books, 2010.
[3] Jackson JD, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed, Wiley, 1999
[4] Zangwill, Andrew (2013). Modern Electrodynamics. Cambridge University Press.
[5] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3PNJ0udOt-H30iYF8I8yohO9m11KruA8
[6] https://quantumuniversity.com/faculty/bryant-meyers/
[7] Farinas PL, Martinez Farinas PO. Effect of electromagnetic field on the action of electron in the treatment of cancer. Vida Nueva. 1951; 67(6): 141–9.
[8] Ellis WV. (1993) Pain control using high-intensity pulsed magnetic stimulation. Bioelectromagnetics. 14(6): 553-556.
[9] Hodaj H, Alibeu JP, Payen JF, et al. Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jul-Aug;8(4):801-7.
[10] Lamusuo S, Hirvonen J, Lindholm P, et al. Neurotransmitters behind pain relief with transcranial magnetic stimulation - positron emission tomography evidence for release of endogenous opioids. Eur J Pain. 2017 May 11.
[11] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Ménard-Lefaucheur I, et al. Neuropathic pain controlled for more than a year by monthly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5.
[12] Ma SM, Ni JX, Li XY. et al. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2162-70.
[13] Shehata HS, Esmail EH, Abdelalim A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 7;9:771-777.
[14] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I et al. (April 2004) Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75(4): 612–616.
[15] Picarelli H, Teixeira MJ, de Andrade DC et al. (November 2010) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I. J Pain 11(11): 1203–1210.
[16] Pujol J, Pascual-Leone A, Dolz C et al. (1998) The effect of repetitive magnetic stimulation on localized musculoskeletal pain. Neuroreport 9(8): 1745–1748.
[17] Jeon HS, Kang SY, Park JH, Lee HS. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on delayed-onset muscle soreness in biceps brachii. Phys Ther Sport. 2015 Feb;16(1):34-9
[18] Giczi J and Guseo A. Treatment of headache by pulsating electromagnetic field a preliminary report. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 74-76, 1987.
[19] Grunner O. Cerebral use of a pulsating magnetic field in neuropsychiatry patients with long-term headache. EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Verwandte Geb (1985) Dec;16(4):227-230.
[20] Lazar L and Farago A. Experiences of patients suffering from migraine-type headache treated with magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 137-140, 1987.
[21] Omar AS, Awadalla MA, ElLatif MA. Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy. Int J Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;15(5): 101-8.
[22] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[23] Aktas I, Akgun K, Cakmak B. Therapeutic effect of pulsed electromagnetic field in conservative treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(8): 1234– 1239.
[24] Leippold T, Strebel RT, Huwyler M et al. Sacral magnetic stimulation in non-inflammatory chronic pelvic pain syndrome. BJU Int. 2005;95: 838–41.
[25] Shafford HL, Hellyer PW, Crump KT et al. Use of a pulsed electromagnetic field for treatment of postoperative pain in dogs: A pilot study. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2002;29(1): 43–48.
[26] Tesic D, Djuric M, Pekaric-Nadj N et al. PEMF aided pain reduction in stomatology. 21st Annual Meeting of Bioelectromagnetics Society, Long Beach, CA, June 1999. Abstract P-141: 157.
[27] Lin ML, Lin MH, Fen JJ et al. (2010) A comparison between pulsed radiofrequency and electro-acupuncture for relieving pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Acupunct Electrother Res 35(3–4): 133–146
[28] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[29] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[30] Stewart DJ, Stewart JE. (1989) The destabilization of an abnormal physiological balanced situation, chronic musculoskeletal pain, utilizing magnetic biological device. Acta Med Hung 46(4): 323–337.
[31] Van Zundert J, Patijn J, Kessels A, et al. Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial. Pain 2007; 127(1–2): 173–82.
[32] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for migraine and other headaches: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther 18(3):101-109, 2001.
[33] Sandyk R. The influence of the pineal gland on migraine and cluster headaches and effects of treatment with picoTesla magnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov-Dec;67(1-4):145-71, 1992.
[34] Thomas AW, Prato FS. Magnetic field based pain therapeutics and diagnostics. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 24th Annual Meeting, Quebec City, PQ, Canada, June, 2002
[35] Thuile C, Walzl M. (2002) Evaluation of electromagnetic fields in the treatment of pain in patients with lumbar radiculopathy or the whiplash syndrome. Neuro Rehabilitation.17: 63-7.
[36] Ay S, Evcik D. (April 2009) The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 29(6): 663–666.
[37] Fleming JL, Persinger MA, Koren SA. (1994) Magnetic pulses elevate nociceptive thresholds: Comparisons with opiate receptor compounds in normal and seizure-induced brain-damaged rats. Electro Magnetobiol. 13(1): 67–75.
[38] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics
[39] Foley-Nolan D, Moore K, Codd M et al. (1992) Low energy high frequency pulsed electromagnetic therapy for acute whiplash injuries. A double blind randomized controlled study. Scand J Rehabil Med 24(1): 51–59.
[40] Forestier R, Françon A, Saint-Arromand F et al. (April 2007a) Are SPA therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy effective for chronic neck pain? Randomised clinical trial. First part: Clinical evaluation. Ann Readapt Med Phys 50(3): 140–147.
[41] Thomas AW, Graham K, Prato FS et al. (Winter 2007) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Res Manage 12(4): 249–258.
[42] Hedén P, Pilla AA. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on postoperative pain: A double-blind randomized pilot study in breast augmentation patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(4): 660–66.
[43] Jorgensen WA, Frome BM, Wallach C. Electrochemical therapy of pelvic pain: Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) on tissue trauma. Eur J Surg. 1994;160(574 Suppl): 83–86.
[44] Reed MW, Bickerstaff DR, Hayne CR, Wyman A, Davies J. Pain relief after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Ineffectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic energy. Br J Clin Pract. 1987;41(6): 782–84.
[45] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Zmudzinski J. The therapeutical effect of variable magnetic field in patients with multiple sclerosis (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 39, 1993.
[46] Maestú C, Blanco M, Nevado A, et al. Reduction of pain thresholds in fibromyalgia after very low-intensity magnetic stimulation: a double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain Res Manag. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):e101-6.
[47] Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, et al. (2006) Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Res Manag. Summer; 11(2): 85–90.
[48] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu F, et al. (2009) Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain. Oct;25(8): 722-8.
[49] Neumüller J, Tohidast-Akrad M, Partsch G, et al. Changes in phagocytosis and the percentage of lymphocyte subsets during therapy with pulsed magnetic fields (PMF). Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1), 29-45 (1989).
[50] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[51] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosine receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol. 2002 May;136(1):57-66.
[52] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Ravani A, et al. Adenosine receptors as a biological pathway for the anti-inflammatory and beneficial effects of low frequency low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields. Mediators Inflamm (2017) 2017:2740963.
[53] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Targa M, et al. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field exposure on adenosine receptors in rat brain. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 May;33(4):279-87.
[54] Vianale G, Reale M, Amerio P, et al. Extremely low frequency electro- magnetic field enhances human keratinocyte cell growth and decreases proinflammatory chemokine production. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1189-96
[55] Vincenzi F, Targa M, Corciulo C, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields increased the anti-inflammatory effect of A2A and A3 adenosine receptors in human T/C-28a2 chondrocytes and hFOB 1.19 osteoblasts. PLoS One. 2013 May 31;8(5):e65561.
[56] Iashchenko LV, Chistiakov IV, Gakh LM, et al. Low-frequency magnetic fields in the combined therapy of inflammatory lung diseases. Probl Tuberk. 1988; 3: 53–6.
[57] Nindl G, Johnson MT, Balcavage WX. Low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on lymphocytes: Potential for treatment of inflammatory diseases. In: Ayrapetyan SN, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. Marcel Dekker, New York, 369–89, 2004.
[58] Cheing GL, Wan JW, Kai Lo S. (November 2005) Ice and pulsed electromagnetic field to reduce pain and swelling after distal radius fractures. J Rehabil Med 37(6): 372–377.
[59] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[60] Huegel J, Chan PYW, Weiss SN, et al.. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy alters early healing in a rat model of rotator cuff injury and repair: Potential mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct 17.
[61] Vannoni D, Albanese A, Battisti E, et al. In vitro exposure of human osteoarthritic chondrocytes to ELF fields and new therapeutic application of musically modulated electromagnetic fields: biological evidence. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2012 Jan-Mar;26(1):39-49.
[62] Veronesi F, Torricelli P, Giavaresi G, et al. In vivo effect of two different pulsed electromagnetic field frequencies on osteoarthritis. Orthop Res. 2014 May;32(5):677-85.
[63] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[64] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[65] Nelson FR, Zvirbulis R, Pilla AA. Non-invasive electromagnetic field therapy produces rapid and substantial pain reduction in early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blind pilot study. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(8): 2169–73.
[66] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics 13(4):445–451.
[67] Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(3): 190–96.
[68] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu BF. (February 2006) The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of cervical osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 26(4): 320–324.
[69] Rehacek, J.; Straub, J.; Benova, H. The effect of magnetic fields on coxarthroses. Fysiatr Revmatol Vestn 60(2):66-68, 1982.
[70] Fu YC, Lin CC, Chang JK, et al. A novel single pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and bone repair. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e91581.
[71] Capanna R, Donati D, Masetti C, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection. A double blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Sep;(306):213-21.
[72] Ehnert S, Schröter S, Aspera-Werz RH, et al. Translational Insights into Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (ELF-PEMFs) for Bone Regeneration after Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery. J Clin Med. 2019 Nov 20;8(12):2028.
[73]Fitzsimmons RJ, Baylink DJ. Growth factors and electromagnetic fields in bone. Clin Plast Surg 1994 Jul;21(3):401-6.
[74] Hambly MF and Mooney V. Effect of smoking and pulsed electromagnetic fields on intradiscal pH in rabbits. Spine 17(6S):S83-S85, 1992.
[75] Mishima S. The effect of long-term pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation on experimental osteoporosis of rats. J UOEH 1988 Mar 1;10(1):31-45
[76] Rubin CT, McLeod KJ, Lanyon LE. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989 Mar;71(3):411-7.
[77] Poh PSP, Seeliger C, Unger M, et al. Osteogenic Effect and Cell Signaling Activation of Extremely Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields in Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2018 Jul 12;2018
[78] Garland DE, Adkins RH, Matsuno NN, et al. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteoporosis at the knee in individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 1999 Winter;22(4):239-45
[79] Liu HF, Yang L, He HC, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields on postmenopausal osteoporosis in Southwest China: a randomized, active-controlled clinical trial. Bioelectromagnetics. 2013 May;34(4):323-32.
[80] Montagnani AM. Effects of pulsed magnetic fields in the therapy of osteoporosis induced by ovariectomy in the rat. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper 1993 Jul-Aug;69(7-8):469-75.
[81] Cho H, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Neural stimulation on human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells by extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Biotechnol Prog. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):1329-35.
[82] Detlavs I, Karklinsch E, Murniece M, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields in treatment patients with diseases of nervous system (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 4th International Congress, 19-21 November, Zagreb, Croatia, 1998.
[83] Di Loreto S, Falone S, Caracciolo V, et al. Fifty hertz extremely low-frequency magnetic field exposure elicits redox and trophic response in rat-cortical neurons. J Cell Physiol. 2009 May;219(2):334-43.
[84] Hei WH, Byun SH, Kim JS, et al. Effects of electromagnetic field (PEMF) exposure at different frequency and duration on the peripheral nerve regeneration: in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Neurosci. 2016 Aug;126(8):739-48.
[85] Hei WH, Kim S, Park JC, et al. Schwann-like cells differentiated from human dental pulp stem cells combined with a pulsed electromagnetic field can improve peripheral nerve regeneration. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr; 37(3): 163–174.
[86] Jung I, Kim H, Noh R, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic fields on NGF induced neuronal differentiation of PC12 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 35:459–469, 2014.
[87] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Adamek, M, et al. The variable magnetic fields in the complex treatment of neurological diseases (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), 3rd International Congress, 29 February-3 March, Nancy, France, 1996.
[88] Goodwin T. Physiological and molecular genetic effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields on human neuronal cells. NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States. NASA/TP-2003-212054.
[89] Li Y, Yan X, Liu J, Let al. Pulsed electromagnetic field enhances brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression through L-type voltage-gated calcium channel- and Erk-dependent signaling pathways in neonatal rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. Neurochem Int. 2014 Sep;75:96-104.
[90] Longo FM, Yang T, et al. Electromagnetic fields influence NGF activity and levels following sciatic nerve transection. J Neurosci Res 55(2):230-237, 1999.
[91] Lagroye I, Bersani F, Billaudel B, et al. Effects of ELF- and RF-EMF on the apoptotic process. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 13-8, p. 134, 2003.
[92] Li Y, Zhao L, Xing X, et al. Effects of different frequency electromagnetic fields on the differentiation of midbrain neural stem cells. Space Med Med Eng (Beijing). 2002 Oct;15(5):374-6.
[93] Nikolova L, Popov A, Klouchek E. Effect of interference current and low-frequency magnetic field on tissue regeneration. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult(3):19-23, 1984.
[94] Park JE, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Electromagnetic fields induce neural differentiation of human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells via ROS mediated EGFR activation. Neurochem Int. 2013 Mar;62(4):418-24.
[95] Wu H, Ren K, Zhao W, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on proliferation and differentiation of cultured mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2005;25(2):185-7.
[96] Zhang X, Zhang J, Qu X, et al. Effects of different extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on osteoblasts. Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(3):167-77.
[97] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54.
[98] Fan W, Qian F, Ma Q, et al. 50 Hz electromagnetic field exposure promotes proliferation and cytokine production of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 May 15;8(5):7394-404.
[99] Ascherl R, Blumel G, Lechner F, et al. On the treatment of loosening of endoprostheses by means of pulsing electromagnetic fields. Bioelectricity Bioenerg 14:161–167, 1985.
[100] Konrad K, Sevcic K, Folde K, et al. 1996. Therapy with pulsed electromagnetic fields in aseptic loosening of total hip prostheses. A prospective study. Clin Rheumatol 15:325–328.
[101] Rispoli FP, Corolla FM, Mussner R. 1988. The use of low frequency pulsing electromagnetic fields in patients with painful hip prostheses. J Bioelectricity 7:181–187.
[102] Mayer-Wagner S, Passberger A, Sievers B, et al. Effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields on the chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011 May;32(4):283-90.
[103] Chen Y, Hong L, Zeng Y, et al. Power frequency magnetic fields induced reactive oxygen species-related autophagy in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014 Dec;57:108-14.
[104] Randelli P, Menon A, Ragone V, et al. Effects of the pulsed electromagnetic field PST® on human tendon stem cells: a controlled laboratory study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Aug 18;16:293.
[105]Benazzo F, Zanon G, Pederzini L et al. Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: Prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(6): 595–601.
[106] Rodemann HP, Wecke P, Jaeschke M. Low-frequency electromagnetic fields induce premature terminal differentiation of in-vitro cultured human skin and lung fibroblasts. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 27(3):269- 280, 1992.
[107] Lee HM, Kwon UH, Kim H, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates cellular proliferation in human into vertebral disc cells. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:954–9.
[108] Mally J and Stone TW. Therapeutic and “dose-dependent” effect of repetitive microelectroshock induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease. J Neurosci Res 57(6):935-940, 1999.
[109] Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Sole J, Brasil-Neto JP, et al. Akinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Ii. Effects of subthreshold repetitive transcranial motor cortex stimulation. Neurology 44(5):892-898, 1994.
[110] Popa T, Russo M, Vidailhet M, et al. Cerebellar rTMS stimulation may induce prolonged clinical benefits in essential tremor, and subjacent changes in functional connectivity: an open label trial. Brain Stimul. 2013 Mar;6(2):175-9.
[111] Strafella AP, Paus T, Barrett J, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human prefrontal cortex induces dopamine release in the caudate nucleus. J Neurosci 21(15):RC157, 2001.
[112] Jadidi M, Biat SM, Sameni HR, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells that located in the electromagnetic fields improves rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2016 Jul;19(7):741-8.
[113] Sandyk R. Reversal of cognitive impairment in an elderly parkinsonian patient by transcranial application of picoTesla electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Sep;91(1-2):57-68, 1997.
[114] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves the response to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Oct;91(3-4):189-97, 1997.
[115] Sandyk R. Freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease is improved by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Mar;85(1-2):111-24, 1996.
[116] Sandyk R. Speech impairment in Parkinson’s disease is improved by transcranial application of electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov;92(1-2):63-72, 1997.
[117] Sandyk R. Reversal of a body image disorder (macrosomatognosia) in Parkinson’s disease by treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Feb;93(1-2):43-54, 1998.
[118] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching induced by transcranial application of AC pulsed electromagnetic fields in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Mar;97(1-2):139-45, 1999
[119] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves olfactory function in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Apr;97(3-4):225-33, 1999.
[120] Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E, et al. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: A randomized trial. Neurology. 2012 Jan 24;78(4):256-64.
[121] Zhao N, Zhang J, Qiu M, et al. Scalp acupuncture plus low-frequency rTMS promotes repair of brain white matter tracts in stroke patients: A DTI study. J Integr Neurosci. 2018; 17(1): 61–9.
[122] Pawluk W, Dennis R, Tommerdahl M. Tracking the effects of pulsed electro-magnetic field (PEMF) on individuals with a history of traumatic brain injury with the Brain Gauge. Cortical Metrics Magazine – Vol. 1, pages 1-4. 2017. https://www.corticalmetrics.com/publications.
[123] Grant G, Cadossi R, Steinberg G. Protection against focal cerebral ischemia following exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics. 1994;15(3):205-16.
[124] Cichoń N, Bijak M, Czarny P, Miller E, Synowiec E, Sliwinski T, Saluk-Bijak J. Increase in Blood Levels of Growth Factors Involved in the Neuroplasticity Process by Using an Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field in Post-stroke Patients. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 Sep 26;10:294.
[125] Lyskov EB, Juutilainen J, Jousmaki V, et al. Effects of 45 Hz magnetic fields on the functional state of the human brain. Bioelectromagnetics (1993)14: 87–95.
[126] Centonze D, Koch G, Versace V, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex ameliorates spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2007 Mar 27;68(13):1045-50.
[127] Koch G, Rossi S, Prosperetti C, et al. Improvement of hand dexterity following motor cortex rTMS in multiple sclerosis patients with cerebellar impairment. Mult Scler. 2008 Aug;14(7):995-8.
[128] Nielsen JF, Sinkjaer T and Jakobsen J. Treatment of spasticity with repetitive magnetic stimulation; a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Mult Scler 1996; 2: 227–232.
[129] Brola W, Wegrzyn W, Czernicki J. Effect of variable magnetic field on motor impairment and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Wiad Lek. 2002;55(3-4):136-43.
[130] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field therapy of multiple sclerosis by the Gyuling–Bordacs device: Double-blind, cross-over and open studies. J Bioelectr 1987; 6: 23–25.
[131] Mix E, Henssen HL, Lehmitz R, et al. Pulsing electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and migraine. Effect on cell volume and phagocytic activity of blood cells and clinical results (meeting abstract). J Bioelectr 9(2):242 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, 1990.
[132] Terlaki, G.; Gyorgy, B.; Payer, A. Clinical experiences by magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 175-179, 1987.
[133] Mostert S and Kesselring J. Effect of pulsed magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients withmultiple sclerosis – a randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 302–305.
[134] Piatkowski J, Kern S and Ziemssen T. Effect of BEMER magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized double – blind controlled trial. J [135] [434] Altern Complement Med 2009; 15: 507–511.Sandyk R and Dann LC. Weak electromagnetic fields attenuate tremor in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. 79 (3-4): 199-212, 1994.
[136] Sandyk, R. Premenstrual exacerbation of symptoms in multiple sclerosis is attenuated by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. 83 (3-4): 187-198, 1995.
[137] Sandyk R. Treatment with weak electromagnetic fields improves fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis. IntJ Neurosci. Feb;84: 177–186, 1996.
[138] Sandyk R. Application of weak electromagnetic fields facilitates sensory–motor integration in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:101 – 110, 1996.
[139] Sandyk R. Weak electromagnetic fields potentiate the effects of 4-aminopyridine in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:125 – 129, 1996.
[140] Sandyk, R. Immediate recovery of cognitive functions and resolution of fatigue by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci Aug;90(1-2):59-74, 1997.
[141] Sandyk R. Resolution of sleep paralysis by weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):145-57, 1997.
[142] Sandyk R. Treatment with electromagnetic fields reverses the long-term clinical course of a patient with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):177-85, 1997.
[143] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching--a behavioral syndrome associated with transcranial application of electromagnetic fields in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):107-13, 1998.
[144] Sandyk R. Serotonergic neuronal atrophy with synaptic inactivation, not axonal degeneration, are the main hallmarks of multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):133-40, 1998.
[145] Akan Z, Aksu B, Tulunay A. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields affect the immune response of monocyte-derived macrophages to pathogens. Bioelectromagnetics 31:603–612, 2010.
[146] Bayir E, Bilgi E, Şendemir-Ürkmez A, et al. The effects of different intensities, frequencies and exposure times of extremely low-frequency electromagneticfields on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Mar;34(1):14-8.
[147] Cellini L, Grande R, Di Campli E, et al. Bacterial response to the exposure of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 29:302-311 (2008).
[148] Nakasono S, Ikehata M, Koana T, et al. A 50 Hz, 14 mT magnetic field is not mutagenic or co-mutagenic in bacterial mutation assays. Mutat Res 471(1-2):127-134, 2000.
[149] Pica F, Serafino A, Divizia M, et al. Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) on Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpes virus in BCBL-1 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 Apr;27(3):226-32.
[150] Strasak L, Vetterl V, Smarda J. Effects of low-frequency magnetic fields on bacteria escherichia coli. Bioelectrochemistry 55(1-2):161-164, 2002.
[151] Rosado MM, Simkó M, Mattsson M-O, et al. (2018) Immune-Modulating Perspectives for Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in Innate Immunity. Front. Public Health 6:85
[152] Budak A, Zyss T, Bogusz B, et al Effect of low frequency alternating magnetic field on the growth in vitro of some pathogenic skin dermatophytes. Alpe Adria Microbiol J 7(3):191-196, 1998.
[153] Golbach LA, Scheer MH, Cuppen JJ, et al. Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Enhances Extracellular Trap Formation by Human Neutrophils through the NADPH Pathway. J Innate Immun. 2015;7(5):459-65.
[154] Mittenzwey R, Sussmuth R, Mei W. Effects of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on bacteria -- the question of a co-stressing factor. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 40(1):21-27, 1996.
[155] Winters WD, Brune JL, Darnell B. Virus suppressor factors induced in cultured cells by exposure in vitro to 60 Hz AC magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 8th Annual Meeting, 1-5 June 1986, Madison, WI, p. 31, 1986.
[156] Zhang J, Xu C, Wan Y, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic field on production of mannatide by α-hemolytic Streptococcus. Bioelectromagnetics. 37:331–337, 2016.
[157] Trial. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 1–26. Effect of Pulse Magnetic Field Stimulus on Blood Flow using Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. Lee Hyun Sook. J Korean Magnetics Society, October 2011, 21 (5), 180-184.
[158] Pastore A, Curr SB, Spinelli M. Interpretation of low-frequency pulsating magnetic field effects on patients affected by peripheral arteriopathy. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 14(1-3):207-213 Presented at the first international A.B.A.EM. Meeting, Venice, February 23-25, 1984, 1985.
[159] Guseo A. Physiological effects of pulsing electromagnetic field. In First Congress of European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), Brussels, Belgium, January 1992, s.31.
[160] Li F, Yuan Y, Guo Y, et al. Pulsed magnetic field accelerate proliferation and migration of cardiac microvascular endothelial cells.Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Jan;36(1):1-9.
[161] Di Carlo AL, Farrell, JM, Litovitz TA. Myocardial protection conferred by electromagnetic fields. Circulation 99(6):813-816, 1999.
[162] Scherlag BJ, Yamanashi WS, Hou Y, et al. Magnetism and cardiac arrhythmias. Cardiol Rev. 2004 Mar-Apr;12(2):85-96.
[163] Iorio R, Monache SD, Bennato F, et al.Involvement of mitochondrial activity in mediating ELF-EMF stimulatory effect on human sperm motility. Bioelectromagnetics 32:15–27, 2011.
[164] De Loecker W, Cheng N, Delport PH. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on membrane transport. In Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine. Ed’s: O’Connor ME, Bentall, RHC, Monahan, JC. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 45–59.
[165] M. Black, L. Soo, V. Papstein, Effects of low frequency magnetic fields on Na,K-ATPase activity, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Volume 38, Issue 2,1995, Pages 267-273,
[166] Zhang S, Clark M, Liu X, et al. The Effects of Bio-inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies. Emerging Science Journal 2019 Dec;3(6):369-381.
[167] Amirifalah Z, Firoozabadi SM, Shafiei SA. Local exposure of brain central areas to a pulsed ELF magnetic field for a purposeful change in EEG. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2013 Jan;44(1):44-52.
[168] Baker-Price LA, Persinger MA. Weak, but complex pulsed magnetic fields may reduce depression following traumatic brain injury. Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Oct;83(2):491-8.
[169] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Prato FS. A comparison of the effects of a 100 ut specific pulsed magnetic field and diazepam on anxiety-related behaviors in male CF1 mice. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 21st Annual Meeting, 20-24 June, Long Beach, CA, Abstract No. P-91, p. 129-130, 1999.
[170] Kalkan MT, Korpinar MA, Seker S, et al. The effect of the 50 Hz frequency sinusoidal magnetic field on the stress-related behavior of rats. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Biomedical Engineering Days, 20-22 May, Istanbul, Turkey, p.78-81, 1998.
[171] Semenova TP, Medvinskaia NI, Bliskovka GI, et al. Influence of electromagnetic fields on the emotional behavior of rats. Radiats Biol Radioecol 40(6):693-695, 2000.
[172] Fischer G and Kokoschinegg PJ. The treatment of sleep disturbances and meteorosensitivity by pulsed magnetic fields of low intensity. Bioelectr 9(2):243 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Hungary, 1990.
[173] Pasche B. Low energy emission therapy (leet) for the treatment of insomnia and anxiety. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. P-151, p. 240-241, 2000.
[174] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for insomnia: a double-blind, placebo- controlled study. Adv Ther Jul-Aug; 18(4):174-180, 2001.
[175] Persinger MA, Hoang V, Baker-Price L. Entrainment of stage 2 sleep spindles by weak, transcerebral magnetic stimulationin an “epileptic” woman. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009; 28(4):374-82.
[176] Tworoger SS, Davis S, Emerson SS, et al. Effect of a nighttime magnetic field exposure on sleep patterns in young women. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 1;160(3):224-9.
[177] Zhang X, Zhang H, Zheng C, et al. Extremely low frequency (ELF) pulsed-gradient magnetic fields inhibit malignant tumour growth at different biological levels. Cell Biol Int. 2002;26(7):599- 603.
[178] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, et al. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9).
[179] Kovalchuk VI, Ahtirskii VI, Dubovoi LV. Use of weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields in treatment of oncological diseases. Fizicheskaia Meditzina 4(1-2):93-95. Abstracts of All-Russian Conference “Use of Low-Level Laser Radiation and Magnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine,” Obninsk, Russia, 21-23 June 1994.
[180] Lubennikov VA, Lazarev AF, Golubtsov VT. First experience in using a whole-body magnetic field exposure in treating cancer patients. Vopr Onkol 41(2):140-141, 1995.
[181] Milevskaya TG, Shitikov BD, Prohorova VI, et al. Eddy magnetic field therapy as a part of combined therapy for breast cancer. Mammologia (2):51-55, 1997.
[182] Ronchetto F, Barone D, Cintorino M, et al. Static and extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields to treat cancer: a pilot study on patients with advanced neoplasm to assess safety and acute toxicity. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27 June, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 14-1, p. 137, 2003.
[183] Omote Y, Hosokawa M, Komatsumoto M, et al. Treatment of experimental tumors with a combination of a pulsing magnetic field and an antitumor drug. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1990 Sep;81(9):956- 61.
[184] Yuan LQ, Wang C, Zhu K, et al. The antitumor effect of static and extremely low frequency magnetic fields against nephroblastoma and neuroblastoma. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Jul;39(5):375-385.
[185] Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, et al.Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.
[186] Goritskaya I, Vinokurov V, Uritsky V, et al. The treatment effect of ELF magnetic fields on patients with ovarian tumours. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. P-16A, p. 99, 1995.
[187] Zimmerman J, Pennison M, Brezovich I, et al. Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. British Journal of Cancer 2012, 106:307 – 313.
[188] Barbault A, Costa FP, Bottger B, et al. Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 14;28(1):51.
[189] Evangelou A, Toliopoulos I, Giotis C, Metsios A, Verginadis I, Simos Y, Havelas K, Hadziaivazis G, Karkabounas S. Functionality of natural killer cells from end-stage cancer patients exposed to coherent electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Mar;30(1):46-56.
[190] Bier RR and Estersohn HS. A new treatment for charcot joint in the diabetic foot. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 77(2):63-69, 1987.
[191] Cieslar G, Sieron A, Radelli J. (1995) The estimation of therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic neuropathy including vibratory sensibility. Balneol Pol 37(1): 23-27.
[192] Laitl-Kobierska A, Cieslar G, Sieron A, et al. Influence of alternating extremely low frequency elf magnetic field on structure and function of pancreas in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 23(1):49-58, 2002.
[193] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Jochan K, et al. The therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Balneol Pol 37(2):44-47, 1995.
[194] Webb CY, Lo SSL, Evans JH. 2003. Prevention of diabetic foot using low frequency magnetotherapy. The Diabetic Foot 6:138–150.
[195] Cañedo-Dorantes L, Soenksen LR, García-Sánchez C, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of systemic extremely low frequency magnetic fields used in the healing of diabetic foot ulcers—phase II data. Arch Med Res. 2015 Aug;46(6):470-8.
[196] Elrashid, Nesrein & Hamada, Hamada & Abdelmoety, Alshaimaa & Soliman, Gaber & Abbas, Rami. (2019). Additional effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields to laser therapy on management of diabetic foot ulcer: A single blind randomized controlled trial. Bioscience Research. 15. 3322-3328.
[197] Tsisel’skiĭ IuV. The effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on ocular hydrodynamics in open-angle glaucoma. Oftalmol Zh. 1990;(2):89-92.
[198] Skrinnik AV and Kovalchuk AS. The impulse electromagnetic field in the treatment of dystrophic lesions of the retina. Oftalmol Zh(8):459-462, 1989.
[199] Verzin AA. Action of gentamycin against a background of magnetotherapy of the anterior chamber in a traumatic infected erosion of the cornea. Antibiotiki. 1982 Oct;27(10):774-5.
[200] Fujishiro T, Enomoto H, Ugawa Y, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2000 Oct;164(4):1277-9.
[201] Fujishiro T, Takahashi S, Enomoto H, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of urinary frequency and urge incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):1036-9.
[202] Suzuki T, Yasuda K, Yamanishi T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled evaluation of the effect of functional continuous magnetic stimulation in patients with urgency incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(6):767-72.
[203] Yamanishi T, Homma Y, Nishizawa O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled study on the efficacy of magnetic stimulation for women with urgency urinary incontinence. Int J Urol. Apr;21(4):395-400, 2014.
[204] Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Sakakibara R, et al. Induction of urethral closure and inhibition of bladder contraction by continuous magnetic stimulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 18(5):505-10, 1999.
[205] Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Karim Khan NA, Yuen KH. Pulsed Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Followup Results. J Urol. 2017 May;197(5):1302-1308.
[206] But I and Varda NM. Functional magnetic stimulation: a new method for the treatment of girls with primary nocturnal enuresis? J Pediatr Urol. 2006 Oct;2(5):415-8.
[207] But I, Faganelj M, Sostaric A. Functional magnetic stimulation for mixed urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1644-6.
[208] But I. Conservative treatment of female urinary incontinence with functional magnetic stimulation. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):558-61.
[209] But I. Functional magnetic stimulation for treatment of urinary incontinence – presentation of Pulsegen device. #433. ICS 2002 Annual Conference, Heidelberg, 28th - 30th August 2002. Meeting abstract.
[210] Nindl G, Spandau DF, Vesper DN, et al. Therapeutic potential of elf magnetic fields in inflammatory skin diseases. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. 13-1, p. 73-74, 2000.
[211] Yurina NA, Radostina AI, Savin BM, et al. Mast cells as a test of body state during electromagnetic exposure of varying intensity. Aviakosm Ekolog Med 31(2):43-47, 1997.
[212] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field effects small intestine motility. European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 33, 1993..
[213] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[214] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
Chapter 1 References
[1] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[2] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[3] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[4] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[5] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
[6] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[7] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[8] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[9] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[10] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[11] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[12] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[13] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[14] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[15] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[16] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[17] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[18] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[19] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[20] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342182/
Chapter 2 References
[1] Galvani, Aloysio Luigi. The Effects of Artificial Electricity on Muscular Motion. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 88():p 2-10, October 1972.
[2] Hartshorne E. On the causes and treatment of pseudarthrosis, and especially that form of it sometimes called supernumerary joint. Am J Med, 1841;1:121-156.
[3] Lente RW. Cases of ununited fracture treated by electricity. NY State J Med. 1850;5:317-319.
[4] Geddes, L.A., 1984. A short history of the electrical stimulation of excitable tissue including electrotherapeutic applications. Physiologist 27 (1), S1–S47.
[5] Flexner, A., 1910. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 4. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; New York.
[6] Becker, R. Stimulation of Partial Limb Regeneration in Rats. Nature 235, 109–111 (1972).
[7] Matteucci, C., 1844. Traité des phénomènes électro-physiologiques des animaux suivi d’études anatomiques
sur le système nerveux et sur l’organe électrique de la torpille par Paul Savi. Fortin, Masson et C., Paris.
[8] du Bois-Reymond, E., 1848-1884. Untersuchungen u ̈ber thierische elektricita ̈t, 2 Reimer, Berlin.
[9] Herlitzka, A., 1910. Ein Beitrag zur Physiologie der Regeneration. Wilhelm Roux Arch Entwicklungsmech
Org. 10, 126–159.
[10] Huttenlocher, A., Horwitz, A.R., 2007. Wound healing with electric potential. N Engl J Med 356,
303–304.
[11] Nguyen, D.T., Orgill, D.P., Murphy, G.F., 2009. The pathophysiologic basis for wound healing and cutaneous regeneration. In: Biomaterials for Treating Skin Loss. Woodhead Publishing (UK/Europe) & CRC Press (US), Cambridge, UK/Boca Raton, FL, pp. 25–57, Chapter 4.
[12] Zaho, M., Song, B., Pu, J., et al., 2006. Electrical signals control wound healing through phosphatidylinositol-
3OH kinase-gamma and PTEN. Nature 442, 457–460.
[13] Chaudhari SN, Kipreos ET. The Energy Maintenance Theory of Aging: Maintaining Energy Metabolism to Allow Longevity. Bioessays. 2018 Aug;40(8):e1800005
[14] Short KR, Bigelow ML, Kahl J, Singh R, Coenen-Schimke J, Raghavakaimal S, Nair KS, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102, 5618
[15] Nuccitelli R, Nuccitelli P, Li C, Narsing S, Pariser DM, Lui K. The electric field near human skin wounds declines with age and provides a noninvasive indicator of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2011 Sep-Oct;19(5):645-55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3228273/
[16] Ud-Din S, Bayat A. Electrical Stimulation and Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Review of Clinical Evidence. Healthcare. 2014; 2(4):445-467
[17] Foulds IS and Barker AT. Human skin battery potentials and their possible role in wound healing. Br J Dermatol 109(5):515-522, 1983.
[18] Barker AT, Jaffe LF, Vanable JW., Jr. The glabrous epidermis of cavies contains a powerful battery. Am J Physiol. 1982;242:R358–R366
[19] Jaffe, L. F. and Nuccitelli, R. (1974). An ultrasensitive vibrating probe for measuring extracellular currents. J. Cell Biol. 63, 614–628.
[20] Borgens, R. B., Robinson, K. R., Vanable, J. W., Jr., McGinnis, M. E., and McCaig, C. D. Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc.
[21] Illingworth, C. M. and Barker, A. T. (1980). Measurement of electrical currents emerging during the regeneration of amputated fingertips in children. Clin.Phys. Physiol. Meas. 1, 87–89.
[22] Brighton CT, Hozack WJ, Brager MD, Windsor RE, Pollack SR, Vreslovic EJ, Kotwick JE. Fracture healing in the rabbit fibula when subjected to various capacitively coupled electrical fields. J Orthop Res. 1985; 3(3): 331–40.
[23] Majno, G., 1975. The Healing Hand. Man and Wound in the Ancient World. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
[24] Levin, Michael; Johnson, Randy L; Sterna, Claudio D; Kuehn, Michael; Tabin, Cliff (September 1995). "A molecular pathway determining left-right asymmetry in chick embryogenesis". Cell. 82 (5): 803–814.
[25] Levin, Michael (1 January 2005). "Left–right asymmetry in embryonic development: a comprehensive review". Mechanisms of Development. 122 (1): 3–25.
[26] Levin, Michael; Thorlin, Thorleif; Robinson, Kenneth R.; Nogi, Taisaku; Mercola, Mark (October 2002). "Asymmetries in H+/K+-ATPase and Cell Membrane Potentials Comprise a Very Early Step in Left-Right Patterning". Cell. 111 (1): 77–89.
[27] Sundelacruz, Sarah; Levin, Michael; Kaplan, David L. (September 2009). "Role of Membrane Potential in the Regulation of Cell Proliferation and Differentiation". Stem Cell Reviews and Reports. 5 (3): 231–246.
[28] Blackiston, Douglas J.; McLaughlin, Kelly A.; Levin, Michael (November 2009). "Bioelectric controls of cell proliferation: Ion channels, membrane voltage and the cell cycle". Cell Cycle. 8 (21): 3527–3536.
[29] Levin, Michael (June 2007). "Large-scale biophysics: ion flows and regeneration". Trends in Cell Biology. 17 (6): 261–270.
[30] Adams, Dany S.; Masi, Alessio; Levin, Michael (1 April 2007). "H+ pump-dependent changes in membrane voltage are an early mechanism necessary and sufficient to induce Xenopus tail regeneration" (PDF). Development. 134 (7): 1323–1335.
[31] Adams, Dany S.; Robinson, Kenneth R.; Fukumoto, Takahiro; Yuan, Shipeng; Albertson, R. Craig; Yelick, Pamela; Kuo, Lindsay; McSweeney, Megan; Levin, Michael (1 May 2006). "Early, H+-V-ATPase-dependent proton flux is necessary for consistent left-right patterning of non-mammalian vertebrates" (PDF). Development. 133 (9): 1657–1671.
[32] Fukumoto, Takahiro; Kema, Ido P.; Levin, Michael (May 2005). "Serotonin Signaling Is a Very Early Step in Patterning of the Left-Right Axis in Chick and Frog Embryos". Current Biology. 15 (9): 794–803. Bibcode:2005CBio...15..794F.
[33] Levin, Michael; Pagan, Sylvia; Roberts, Drucilla J.; Cooke, Jonathan; Kuehn, Michael R.; Tabin, Clifford J. (September 1997). "Left/Right Patterning Signals and the Independent Regulation of Different Aspects ofSitusin the Chick Embryo". Developmental Biology. 189 (1): 57–67.
[34] Levin, Michael (December 2014). "Molecular bioelectricity: how endogenous voltage potentials control cell behavior and instruct pattern regulation in vivo". Molecular Biology of the Cell. 25 (24): 3835–3850.
[35] Levin, Michael (2019). "The Computational Boundary of a "Self": Developmental Bioelectricity Drives Multicellularity and Scale-Free Cognition". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 2688.
[36] Borgens, R. B. (1982). What is the role of naturally produced electric current in vertebrate regeneration and healing?. Int. Rev. Cytol. 76, 245–298.
[37] Borgens, R. B., Robinson, K. R., Vanable, J. W., Jr., McGinnis, M. E., and McCaig, C. D. Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc.
[38] Cho, M. R. (2002). A review of electrocoupling mechanisms mediating facilitated wound healing. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 30, 1504–1515.
[39] Cho, M. R., Marler, J. P., Thatte, H. S., and Golan, D.E. (2002). Control of calcium entry in human fibroblasts by frequency-dependent electrical stimulation. Front Biosci. a1–a8.
[40] Jaffe, L. F. and Vanable, J. W. (1984). Electric fields and wound healing. Clin. Dermatol. 2, 34–44.
[41] McCaig, C. D. and Zhao, M. (1997). Physiological electrical fields modify cell behaviour. BioEssays 19, 819–826.
[42] McCaig, C. D., Rajnicek, A. M., Song, B., and Zhao, M. (2002). Has electrical growth cone guidance found its potential? Trends Neurosci. 25, 354–359.
[43] Nuccitelli, R. (1984). The involvement of transcellular ion currents and electric fields in pattern formation, in Pattern Formation: A Primer in Developmental Biology, edited by G. M. Malacinski, and S. V. Bryant. New York, London: MacMillan Publishing Co., Collier MacMillan Publishers, pp. 23–46.
[44] Nuccitelli, R. (1988). Physiological electric fields can influence cell motility, growth, and polarity. Adv. Cell Biol. 2, 213–233
[45] Robinson, K. R. (1985). The responses of cells to electrical fields: A review. J. Cell Biol. 101, 2023–2027.
[46] Vanable, J. W. (1989). Integumentary potentials and wound healing, in Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair, edited by R. B. Borgens, K. R. Robinson, J. W. Vanable, Jr. M. E. McGinnis. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc, pp. 171–224.
[47] Nuccitelli, Richard. (2003). A Role for Endogenous Electric Fields in Wound Healing. Current topics in developmental biology. 58. 1-26. 10.1016/S0070-2153(03)58001-2.
[48] Zhao, M., Forrester, J.V., McCaig, C.D., 1999. A small, physiological electric field orients cell division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 4942–4946.
[49] Wang, E.T., Zhao, M., 2010. 2010 Regulation of tissue repair and regeneration by electric fields. Chin. J. Traumatol. 13 (1), 55–61.
[50] H. Richard Leuchtag. "Voltage-Sensitive Ion Channels: Biophysics of Molecular Excitability". Retrieved 2012-08-01.
[51] Zhao, M., Forrester, J.V., McCaig, C.D., 1999. A small, physiological electric field orients cell division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 4942–4946.
[52] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[53] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[54] Brighton CT, Hozack WJ, Brager MD, Windsor RE, Pollack SR, Vreslovic EJ, Kotwick JE. Fracture healing in the rabbit fibula when subjected to various capacitively coupled electrical fields. J Orthop Res. 1985;3(3):331–40.
[55] C.A. Bassett, Fundamental and practical aspects of therapeutic uses of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs), Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 17 (1989) 451–529.
[56] A.A. Pilla, Low-intensity electromagnetic and mechanical modulation of bone growth and repair: are they equivalent? J. Orthop. Sci. 7 (2002) 420–428.
[57] Bassett, C.A. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields; Carpenter, D.O., Aĭrapetíàn, S.N., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1994;
[58] Chiang, M., Cragoe, E. J., Jr., and Vanable, J. W. (1991). Intrinsic electric fields promote epithelialization of wounds in the newt, Notophthalmus viridescens. Dev. Biol. 146, 377–385.
[59] Sta Iglesia, D. D., Cragoe, E. J., Jr., and Vanable, J. W., Jr. (1996). Electric field strength and epithelization in the newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). J. Exp. Zool. 274, 56–62.
[60] Sta Iglesia, D. D. and Vanable, J. W., Jr. (1998). Endogenous lateral electric fields around bovine corneal lesions are necessary for and can enhance normal rates of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 6, 531–542.
[61] Becker RO. The bioelectric factors in amphibian-limb regeneration. J Bone Joint Surg 1961;43:643–56.
[62] Becker, R. O. (1961). "Search for Evidence of Axial Current Flow in Peripheral Nerves of Salamander". Science. 134 (3472): 101–2.
[63] Cheng, N., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[64] Kloth, L.C., McCulloch, J.M., 1996. Promotion of wound healing with electrical stimulation. Adv. Wound
Care 9 (5), 42–45.
[65] Messerli, M.A., Graham, D.M., 2011. Extracellular electrical fields direct wound healing and regeneration. Biol. Bull. 221, 79–92.
[66] Taghipour, Hamed & Frounchi, Javad & Ahmadiasl, Nasser & Shahabi, Parviz & Salekzamani, Yaghoub. (2015). Effect of contacts configuration and location on selective stimulation of cuff electrode. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering. 25. 237-248. 10.3233/BME-151281.
[67] Bassett CAL. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. Advances in Chemistry. 1995;250:261–276
[68] Taverner, Murray & Loughnan, Terence & Soon, Chien-Wuen. (2012). Transcutaneous Application of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment for Shoulder Pain. Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain.
[69] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[70] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[71] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54.
[72] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[73] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[74] Bassett, C.A.L., 1995. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. In: Blank, M. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields: Biological interactions and Mechanisms. Advances in chemistry Series, vol. 250. American chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 261–275
[75] Rubin, C.T., McLeod, K.J., Lanyon, L.E., 1989. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 71 (3), 411–417.
[76] Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
[77] Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[78] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[79] Shujun Zhang et al., “The Effects of Bio-Inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies,” Emerging Science Journal 3, no. 6 (December 1, 2019): 369–81
[80] Blank M. Electric and magnetic field signal transduction in the membrane Na-K ATPase. Adv Chem 1995b; 250:339–348.“
[81] B Lednev, V. V., & Malyshev, S. L. (2001). Effects of weak combined magnetic fields on actin-activated ATPase activity of skeletalmyosin. In Abstract Collection of the Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting. St Paul, Minnesota, USA, p. 3–4.
[82] Science 12 Apr 2002: Vol. 296, Issue 5566, pp. 346-349
[83]Dertinger H. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut für Medizintechnik u. Biophysik, March, 2002.
[84] Goodwin, Thomas & McCarthy, Maureen & Dennis, Robert. (2005). Physiological And Molecular Genetic Effects Of Time Varying Electromagnetic Fields (TVEMF) On Human Neuronal Cells. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise - MED SCI SPORT EXERCISE. 37. 10.1249/00005768-200505001-00867.
[85] Nuccitelli R. A role for endogenous electric fields in wound healing. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2003;58:1-26.
[86] Barker AT, Jaffe LF, Vanable JW., Jr. The glabrous epidermis of cavies contains a powerful battery. Am J Physiol. 1982;242:R358–R366
[87] H. Richard Leuchtag. "Voltage-Sensitive Ion Channels: Biophysics of Molecular Excitability". Retrieved 2012-08-01.
[88] George, I., Geddis, M.S., Lill, Z., Lin, H., Gomez, T., Blank, M., Oz, M.C., and Goodman, R. (2008). Myocardial function improved by electromagnetic field induction of stress protein hsp70. J Cell Physiol 216, 816–823.
[89] Singh S, Khanduja KL, Mittal PK. Influence of 50 Hz sinusoidal electromagnetic field on hepatic and pulmonary phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes in mice. Electro Magnetobiol 17 (3): 343-350, 1998.
[90] George, I., Geddis, M.S., Lill, Z., Lin, H., Gomez, T., Blank, M., Oz, M.C., and Goodman, R. (2008). Myocardial function improved by electromagnetic field induction of stress protein hsp70. J Cell Physiol 216, 816–823.
[91] Blank M, Goodman R. 2004. Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced interactions. J Cell Physiol 199: 359–363.
[92] Vianale, G., Reale, M., Amerio, P., Stefanachi, M., Di Luzio, S., and Muraro, R. (2008). Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field enhances human keratinocyte cell growth and decreases proinflammatory chemokine production. Br J Dermatol 158, 1189–1196.
[93] Vincenzi F, Targa M, Corciulo C, Gessi S, Merighi S, Setti S, Cadossi R, Goldring MB, Borea PA, Varani K. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields increased the Anti-Inflammatory Effect of A2a and A3 Adenosine receptors in Human T/C-28a2 Chondrocytes and fFOB 1.19 Osteoblasts. PLOS ONE 2013; 8(5):e65561
[94] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, Iannotta V, Cattabriga E, Spisani S, Cadossi R, Borea PA. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosine receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol. 2002;136(1):57–66.
[95] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, Iannotta V, Cattabriga E, Pancaldi C, Cadossi R, Borea PA. Alteration of A3 adenosine receptors in human neutrophils and low frequency electromagnetic fields. Biochem Pharmacol. 2003;66(10):1897–1906.
[96] Varani K, De Mattei M, Vincenzi F, Gessi S, Merighi S, Pellati A, Ongaro A, Caruso A, Cadossi R, Borea PA. Characterization of adenosine receptors in bovine chondrocytes and fibroblast-like synoviocytes exposed to low frequency low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(3):292–304.
[97] Massari L, Benazzo F, De Mattei M, Setti S, Fini M; CRES Study Group. Effects of electrical physical stimuli on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:152-61.
[98] Pilla AA. Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling in challenged biological systems. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2012;426:330–333.
[99] Chul-Ho Kim et al., “The Impact of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Blood Pressure and Circulating Nitric Oxide Levels: A Double Blind, Randomized Study in Subjects with Metabolic Syndrome,” Blood Pressure 29, no. 1 (February 2020): 47–54
In a trial by scientists from Minnesota and Arizona, PEMF demonstrated improvements in blood pressure and vascular funtion in hypertensive individuals.36 These scientists also conducted another trial in 2020 to study the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on blood pressure and nitric oxide levels in patients with metabolic syndrome
[100] Glenn M. Stewart et al., “Impact of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Vascular Function and Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Individuals,” Journal of Clinical Hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) 22, no. 6 (June 2020): 1083–89, https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.13877.
[101] Kim et al., “The Impact of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Blood Pressure and Circulating Nitric Oxide Levels: A Double Blind, Randomized Study in Subjects with Metabolic Syndrome.”
[102] Kim SB, Lee NR, Park SW, et al. Electromagnetic acupuncture to enhance the effects of manual acupuncture on recovery from muscle fatigue of the quadriceps. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2014 Oct;7(5):250-7.
[103] Lee NR, Kim SB, Heo H, et al. Comparison of the Effects of Manual Acupuncture, Laser Acupuncture, and Electromagnetic Field Stimulation at Acupuncture Point BL15 on Heart Rate Variability. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2016 Oct;9(5):257-263.
[104] Selvamurugan N, Kwok S, Vasilov A, Jefcoat SC, Patridge NC. Effects of BMP-2 and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on rat primary osteoblastic cell proliferation and gene expression. J Orthop Res. 2007; 25(9): 1213-20
[105] Ibiwaye MO, Powell Ka, Grabnier MD. Bone mass is preserved in a critical-sized osteotomy by low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields as quantitated by in vivo micro-computed tomography. J Orthop Res. 2004; 2004 22(5): 1086-93.
[106] Androjna C, Waldorff EJ, Ryaby JT, Zborowski M, Midura RJ. Optimizing Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Signals to Reduce Bone Loss Associated with Osteoporosis". Orthopedic Research Society March 2017, San Diego Calfornia.
[107] Bassett CA, Becker RO. Generation of electric potentials in bone in response to mechanical stress. Science 1962;137:1063–4.
[108] Basset CAL, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled magnetic field. Science 1974;184:575–9.
[109] Goodwin, T. Physiologic and molecular genetic effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields on human neuronal cells. Lyndon B Johnson Space Center. 2003 Sep. NASA
[110] Becker RO. The bioelectric factors in amphibian-limb regeneration. J Bone Joint Surg 1961;43:643–56.
[111] Becker RO. Augmentation of regenerative healing in man. A possible alternative to prosthetic implantation. Clin Orthop 83 (1972):255–262.
[112] Muehsam D, Lalezari P, Lekhraj R, et al. Non-thermal radio frequency and static magnetic fields increase rate of hemoglobin deoxygenation in a cell-free preparation. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 12;8(4):e61752.
[113] https://magdahavas.com/health-issues/dr-oz-on-pemf-therapy-and-pain-control/
[114] Novickij V, Grainys A, Švedienė J, et al. Microsecond pulsed magnetic field improves efficacy of antifungal agents on pathogenic microorganisms. Bioelectromagnetics 35(5): 347–353, 2014.
[115] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm, Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658,
[116] Meyers, B. PEMF, The 5th element of health. Balboa Press 2013.
Chapter 3 References
[1] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[2] Wang KW , Hladky SB . An upper limit for the effect of low frequency magnetic fields on ATP - sensitive potassium channels . Biochim Biophys Acta . 1994 ; 1195 : 218–222
[3] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[4] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[5] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[6] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[7] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
[8] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[9] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[10] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[11] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[12] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[13] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[14] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[15] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[16] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[17] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[18] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[19] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[20] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[21] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[22] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[23] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[24] Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science. 1974 May 3;184(4136):575-7.
[25] Goodwin, Thomas. (2003). Physiological and Molecular Genetic Effects of Time-Varying Electromagnetic Fields on Human Neuronal Cells
[26] Goodwin, Thomas & McCarthy, Maureen & Dennis, Robert. (2005). Physiological And Molecular Genetic Effects Of Time Varying Electromagnetic Fields (TVEMF) On Human Neuronal Cells. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise - MED SCI SPORT EXERCISE. 37. 10.1249/00005768-200505001-00867.
[27] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54. {20 mT did not work}
[28] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[29] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[30] Bassett, C.A.L., 1995. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. In: Blank, M. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields: Biological interactions and Mechanisms. Advances in chemistry Series, vol. 250. American chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 261–275
[31] Rubin, C.T., McLeod, K.J., Lanyon, L.E., 1989. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 71 (3), 411–417.
[32] Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
[33] Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[34] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[35] Weaver JC, Astumian RD. The response of living cells to very weak electric fields: the thermal noise limit. Science. 1990 Jan 26;247(4941):459-62
[36] IEC. Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. In: Diagnostic imaging equipment, publication IEC 60601-2-33, medical electrical equipment, Part 2. International Electrotechnology Commission, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, 1995.
[37] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part I: Overview and First Observations. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2019; 1(1)DOI
[38] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)
[39] Dennis, R.G., Dow, D. E. (2007) Excitability of skeletal muscle during development, denervation, and tissue culture. Tissue Engineering, 13:10, 2395-2404, October.
[40] Dennis, R.G., Paul E. Kosnik, Mark E. Gilbert, and John A. Faulkner. (2001) Excitability and contractility of skeletal muscle engineered from primary cultures and cell lines. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 280: C288-C295.
[41] Dennis R.G., Kosnik P.E. (2000) Excitability and isometric contractile properties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineered in vitro. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 36(5): 327-335.
[42] Kosnik P. Jr., Faulkner J.A., and Dennis R.G. (2001) Functional development of engineered skeletal muscle from adult and neonatal rats. Tissue Engineering, 7(5) 573-584.
[43] Hubbard D. Electroceutical technology: anti-inflammatory effects of 40-160 T/s inductively coupled electrical stimulation (ICES) in the acute inflammation model. 2013
Chapter 4 References
[1] Massari L, Benazzo F, De Mattei M, Setti S, Fini M; CRES Study Group. Effects of electrical physical stimuli on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:152-61.
[2] According to DIN 33402-2, all the data refers to adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in Germany. The data was taken from the “Kleine Ergonomische Datensammlung" published by the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA).
Chapter 5 References
[1] https://americanliterature.com/childrens-stories/goldilocks-and-the-three-bears
[2] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[3] Massari, L.; Benazzo, F.; Moretti, B.; Dallari, D.; Perugia, D.; Meani, E.; Cadossi, R. Electrical Stimulation of Osteogenesis: Efficacy and Technologies Compared. GIOT 2011, 6, 1–8.
[4] Data from above study [3] was partially communicated at the congress: 2nd Trauma Meeting, Milano Marittima, 15-17 October 2009 (Ravazzani P. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for bone regeneration: analysis of existing technology and distribution of the magnetic field).
[5] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. Gatekeeper Press (2021).
[6] Pawluk, W & Layne, C. Power Tools for Health. FriesenPress (2017).
[7] Pawluk, W. Sleep Problems - The PEMF Solution. Ebook
[8] Pawluk, W. Supercharge your energy healing with PEMF. Ebook
[9] Pawluk, W. Pulsed Electric Magnetic Fields (PEMF) stimulates Mitochondria to Produce ATP. Ebook
[10] Pawluk, W. Reduce the Impact of Stress on the Body with PEMFs. Ebook
[11] Pawluk, W. PEMF Therapy for Pain and inflammation Ebook.
[12] Pawluk, W. Magnetic Field Therapy for PAIN. Ebook
[13] Pawluk, W. The Potential of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) for Slowing or Reversing Heart Failure. Ebook
[14] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health to Protect Yourself Against Cancer. Ebook
[15] Pawluk, W. Clinical Use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMFs), in Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Clinical Applications (2020). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov
[16] Pawluk, W. Clinical Dosimetry of Extremely Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields. In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics (2017).Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov
[17] Pawluk, W. Magnetic Fields for Pain Control in Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine (pp.273-296). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov Duplicates removed
[18] Studies Highlighted on his Website https://www.drpawluk.com/pemf-studies
[19] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dOBOhuqzdBhZOAANnvT_2KCFWAdNxNc1WloU33_KRKM
[20] Thomas, A. W., K. Graham, et al. (2007). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Res Manag 12(4): 249-58.
[21] Pawluk W., Use of a PEMF to Treat Complex TBI with Brain Gauge and Rivermead Outcome Measures, Journal of Science and Medicine, Vol 2, No. 1 (2020).
[22] Pawluk W, Turk Z, Fischer G, Kobinger W. Treatment of osteoarthritis with a new broadband PEMF signal. Presentation. 24th Annual Meeting of Bioelectromagnetics Society, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, June 2002.
[23] Ellis WV. (1993) Pain control using high-intensity pulsed magnetic stimulation. Bioelectromagnetics. 14(6): 553-556.
[24] Hodaj H, Alibeu JP, Payen JF, et al. Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jul-Aug;8(4):801-7.
[25] Lamusuo S, Hirvonen J, Lindholm P, et al. Neurotransmitters behind pain relief with transcranial magnetic stimulation - positron emission tomography evidence for release of endogenous opioids. Eur J Pain. 2017 May 11.
[26] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Ménard-Lefaucheur I, et al. Neuropathic pain controlled for more than a year by monthly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5.
[27] Ma SM, Ni JX, Li XY. et al. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2162-70.
[28] Shehata HS, Esmail EH, Abdelalim A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 7;9:771-777.
[29] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I et al. (April 2004) Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75(4): 612–616.
[30] Picarelli H, Teixeira MJ, de Andrade DC et al. (November 2010) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I. J Pain 11(11): 1203–1210.
[31] Pujol J, Pascual-Leone A, Dolz C et al. (1998) The effect of repetitive magnetic stimulation on localized musculoskeletal pain. Neuroreport 9(8): 1745–1748.
[32] Jeon HS, Kang SY, Park JH, Lee HS. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on delayed-onset muscle soreness in biceps brachii. Phys Ther Sport. 2015 Feb;16(1):34-9
[33] Centonze D, Petta F, Versace V, et al. Effects of motor cortex rTMS on lower urinary tract dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2007 Mar;13(2):269-71.
[34] Fujishiro T, Enomoto H, Ugawa Y, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2000 Oct;164(4):1277-9.
[35] Fujishiro T, Takahashi S, Enomoto H, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of urinary frequency and urge incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):1036-9.
[36] Manganotti P, Zaina F, Vedovi E, et al. Repetitive magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: a brief report. Medicophys. 2007 Sep;43(3):339-44.
[37] Suzuki T, Yasuda K, Yamanishi T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled evaluation of the effect of functional continuous magnetic stimulation in patients with urgency incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(6):767-72.
[38] Yamanishi T, Homma Y, Nishizawa O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled study on the efficacy of magnetic stimulation for women with urgency urinary incontinence. Int J Urol. Apr;21(4):395-400, 2014.
[39] Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Sakakibara R, et al. Induction of urethral closure and inhibition of bladder contraction by continuous magnetic stimulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 18(5):505-10, 1999.
[40] Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Karim Khan NA, Yuen KH. Pulsed Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Followup Results. J Urol. 2017 May;197(5):1302-1308.
[41] Garcia-Toro M, Mayol A, Arnillas H, et al. Modest adjunctive benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation in medication-resistant depression. J Affect Disord 64(2-3):271-275, 2001.
[42] Keck ME, Welt T, Post A, et al. Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in a psychopathological animal model are suggestive of antidepressant-like effects. Neuropsychopharmacology 24(4):337-349, 2001.
[43] Szuba MP, O’Reardon JP, Rai A, et al. Acute mood and thyroid stimulating hormone effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depression. Biol Psychiatry 50(1):22-27, 2001.
[44] Thut G, Veniero D, Romei V, et al. Rhythmic TMS causes local entrainment of natural oscillatory signatures. Curr Biol. 2011 Jul 26;21(14):1176-85.
[45] Boggio PS, Rocha M, Oliveira MO, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation with high-frequency and low- intensity repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;71(8):992-9.
[46] Cohen H, Kaplan Z, Kotler M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;161(3):515-24.
[47] Cohen H, Kaplan Z, Kotler M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;161(3):515-24.
[48] Grisaru N, Amir M, Cohen H,et al. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation in posttraumatic stress disorder: a preliminary study. Biol Psychiatry 44(1):52-55, 1998.
[49] McCann, UD, Kimbrell TA, Morgan CM, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55(3):276-279, 1998.
[50] Trevizol AP, Barros MD, Silva PO, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2016 Jan-Mar;38(1):50-5.
[51] Ebert U and Ziemann U. Altered seizure susceptibility after high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation in rats. Neurosci Lett 1999 Oct 8;273(3):155-8.
[52] Menkes DL and Gruenthal M. Slow-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in a patient with focal cortical dysplasia. Epilepsia 2000 Feb;41(2):240-2.
[53] Steinhoff BJ, Stodieck SR, Zivcec Z, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the brain in patients with mesiotemporal epileptic foci. Clin Electroencephalogr 1993 Jan;24(1):1-5.
[54] Tassinari CA, Michelucci R, Forti A, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in epileptic patients: usefulness and safety. Neurology 1990 Jul;40(7):1132-3.
[55] Centonze D, Koch G, Versace V, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex ameliorates spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2007 Mar 27;68(13):1045-50.
[56] Koch G, Rossi S, Prosperetti C, et al. Improvement of hand dexterity following motor cortex rTMS in multiple sclerosis patients with cerebellar impairment. Mult Scler. 2008 Aug;14(7):995-8.
[57] Nielsen JF, Sinkjaer T and Jakobsen J. Treatment of spasticity with repetitive magnetic stimulation; a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Mult Scler 1996; 2: 227–232.
[58] Addiction recovery (ie smoking cessation, alcoholism) rTMS x 4
Dinur-Klein L, Dannon P, Hadar A, et al. Smoking cessation induced by deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal and insular cortices: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Nov 1;76(9):742-9.
[59] Gorelick DA, Zangen A, George MS. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of substance addiction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Oct;1327:79-93.
[60] Staroverov AT, Vil’yanov VB, Raigorodskii YM, et al. Transcranial magnetotherapy in the complex treatment of affective disorders in patients with alcoholism. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2009 Jun;39(5):507-11.
[61] Wing VC, Barr MS, Wass CE, et al. Brain stimulation methods to treat tobacco addiction. Brain Stimul. 2013 May;6(3):221-30
[62] Mally J and Stone TW. Therapeutic and “dose-dependent” effect of repetitive microelectroshock induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease. J Neurosci Res 57(6):935-940, 1999.
[63] Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Sole J, Brasil-Neto JP, et al. Akinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Ii. Effects of subthreshold repetitive transcranial motor cortex stimulation. Neurology 44(5):892-898, 1994.
[64] Popa T, Russo M, Vidailhet M, et al. Cerebellar rTMS stimulation may induce prolonged clinical benefits in essential tremor, and subjacent changes in functional connectivity: an open label trial. Brain Stimul. 2013 Mar;6(2):175-9.
[65] Strafella AP, Paus T, Barrett J, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human prefrontal cortex induces dopamine release in the caudate nucleus. J Neurosci 21(15):RC157, 2001.
[66] Han JQ, Liu Q, Sun CT, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-frequency rotary magnetic fields in the treatment of patients with advanced malignant tumors.
[67] Zhang X, Zhang H, Zheng C, et al. Extremely low frequency (ELF) pulsed-gradient magnetic fields inhibit malignant tumour growth at different biological levels. Cell Biol Int. 2002;26(7):599- 603.
[68] Du L, Fan H, Miao H, et al. Extremely low frequency magnetic fields inhibit adipogenesis of human mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 35(7): 519–530, 2014.
[69] Luzi L, Ferrulli A, Drago L, et al. Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (dTMS) Exerts Anti-Obesity Effects Via Microbiota Modulation. Endocrine Society 2017 Annual Conference, Orlando FL. Abstract: LB SUN 72.
[70] Cohrs S, Tergau F, Riech S, et al. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation delays rapid eye movement sleep. Neuroreport. 1998 Oct 26;9(15):3439-43.
[71] Massimini M, Ferrarelli F, Esser SK, et al. Triggering sleep slow waves by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007, May 15;104(20):8496-501.
[72] Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E, et al. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: A randomized trial. Neurology. 2012 Jan 24;78(4):256-64.
[73] Zhao N, Zhang J, Qiu M, et al. Scalp acupuncture plus low-frequency rTMS promotes repair of brain white matter tracts in stroke patients: A DTI study. J Integr Neurosci. 2018; 17(1): 61–9.
[74] Drug delivery enhancement (via increased electroporation) x1
Novickij V, Grainys A, Švedienė J, et al. Microsecond pulsed magnetic field improves efficacy of antifungal agents on pathogenic microorganisms. Bioelectromagnetics 35(5): 347–353, 2014.
[75] Zhu, M., Yang, Z., Yu, H., et al. (2020). The Efficacy and Safety of Low-frequency Rotating Static Magnetic Field Therapy Combined with Chemotherapy on Advanced Lung Cancer Patients: A Randomized, Double-blinded, Controlled Clinical
[76] Trial. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 1–26. Effect of Pulse Magnetic Field Stimulus on Blood Flow using Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. Lee Hyun Sook. J Korean Magnetics Society, October 2011, 21 (5), 180-184.
[77] Fu YC, Lin CC, Chang JK, et al. A novel single pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and bone repair. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e91581.
[78] Giczi J and Guseo A. Treatment of headache by pulsating electromagnetic field a preliminary report. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 74-76, 1987.
[79] Grunner O. Cerebral use of a pulsating magnetic field in neuropsychiatry patients with long-term headache. EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Verwandte Geb (1985) Dec;16(4):227-230.
[80] Lazar L and Farago A. Experiences of patients suffering from migraine-type headache treated with magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 137-140, 1987.
[81] Omar AS, Awadalla MA, ElLatif MA. Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy. Int J Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;15(5): 101-8.
[82] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[83] Aktas I, Akgun K, Cakmak B. Therapeutic effect of pulsed electromagnetic field in conservative treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(8): 1234– 1239.
[84] Leippold T, Strebel RT, Huwyler M et al. Sacral magnetic stimulation in non-inflammatory chronic pelvic pain syndrome. BJU Int. 2005;95: 838–41.
[85] Shafford HL, Hellyer PW, Crump KT et al. Use of a pulsed electromagnetic field for treatment of postoperative pain in dogs: A pilot study. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2002;29(1): 43–48.
[86] Tesic D, Djuric M, Pekaric-Nadj N et al. PEMF aided pain reduction in stomatology. 21st Annual Meeting of Bioelectromagnetics Society, Long Beach, CA, June 1999. Abstract P-141: 157.
[87] Lin ML, Lin MH, Fen JJ et al. (2010) A comparison between pulsed radiofrequency and electro-acupuncture for relieving pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Acupunct Electrother Res 35(3–4): 133–146
[88] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[89] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[90] Stewart DJ, Stewart JE. (1989) The destabilization of an abnormal physiological balanced situation, chronic musculoskeletal pain, utilizing magnetic biological device. Acta Med Hung 46(4): 323–337.
[91] Van Zundert J, Patijn J, Kessels A, et al. Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial. Pain 2007; 127(1–2): 173–82.
[92] Capanna R, Donati D, Masetti C, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection. A double blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Sep;(306):213-21.
[93] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics 2009 30:423-430.
[94] Esposito M, Lucariello A, Riccio I, et al. Differentiation of human osteoprogenitor cells increases after treatment with pulsed electromagnetic fields. In Vivo. 2012 Mar-Apr;26(2):299-304.
[95] Johnson MT, Vanscoy-Cornett A, Vesper DN, et al. Electromagnetic fields used clinically to improve bone healing also impact lymphocyte proliferation in vitro. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2001;37:215-20.
[96] Kim EC, Leesungbok R, Lee SW, et al. Effects of moderate intensity magnetic fields on human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Apr;36(4):267-76.
[97] Ongaro A, Pellati A, Bagheri L, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulate osteogenic differentiation in human bone marrow and adipose tissue derived mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Sep;35(6):426-36.
[98] Song M, Zhao D, Wei S, et al. The effect of electromagnetic fields on the proliferation and the osteogenic or adipogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells modulated by dexamethasone. Bioelectromagnetics. 35:479–490, 2014.
[99] Sun LY, Hsieh DK, Yu TC, Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on the proliferation and differentiation potential of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics 2009 May;30(4):251-60.
[100] Zhou J, Wang JQ, Ge BF, et al. Different electromagnetic field waveforms have different effects on proliferation, differentiation and mineralization of osteoblasts in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Jan;35(1):30-8.
[101] Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science. 1974; 184(4136): 575–7.
[102] Ehnert S, Schröter S, Aspera-Werz RH, et al. Translational Insights into Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (ELF-PEMFs) for Bone Regeneration after Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery. J Clin Med. 2019 Nov 20;8(12):2028.
[103] Garland DE, Adkins RH, Matsuno NN, et al. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteoporosis at the knee in individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 1999 Winter;22(4):239-45
[104] Liu HF, Yang L, He HC, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields on postmenopausal osteoporosis in Southwest China: a randomized, active-controlled clinical trial. Bioelectromagnetics. 2013 May;34(4):323-32.
[105] Montagnani AM. Effects of pulsed magnetic fields in the therapy of osteoporosis induced by ovariectomy in the rat. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper 1993 Jul-Aug;69(7-8):469-75.
[106] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, et al. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9).
[107] Kovalchuk VI, Ahtirskii VI, Dubovoi LV. Use of weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields in treatment of oncological diseases. Fizicheskaia Meditzina 4(1-2):93-95. Abstracts of All-Russian Conference “Use of Low-Level Laser Radiation and Magnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine,” Obninsk, Russia, 21-23 June 1994.
[108] Letiagin VP, Dobrynin YV, Rybakov YL, et al. Application of the turbulent magnetic field (TMF)-influence for decrease of the postoperative lymphorrhea after surgical treatment of the locally spread breast cancer. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 24th Annual Meeting, 23-27 June, Quebec City, QC, Canada, Abstract (poster) No. P-26, p. 162, 2002.
[109] Lubennikov VA, Lazarev AF, Golubtsov VT. First experience in using a whole-body magnetic field exposure in treating cancer patients. Vopr Onkol 41(2):140-141, 1995.
[110] Milevskaya TG, Shitikov BD, Prohorova VI, et al. Eddy magnetic field therapy as a part of combined therapy for breast cancer. Mammologia (2):51-55, 1997.
[111] Randoll UG and Pangan RM. The role of complex biophysical-chemical therapies for cancer. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 27(3):341-346, 1992.
[112] Ronchetto F, Barone D, Cintorino M, et al. Static and extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields to treat cancer: a pilot study on patients with advanced neoplasm to assess safety and acute toxicity. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27 June, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 14-1, p. 137, 2003.
[113] Akbarnejad Z, Eskandary H, Dini L, et al Cytotoxicity of temozolomide on human glioblastoma cells is enhanced by the concomitant exposure to an extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field (100Hz, 100G). Biomed Pharmacother, 92 (2017), pp. 254-264
[114] Omote Y, Hosokawa M, Komatsumoto M, et al. Treatment of experimental tumors with a combination of a pulsing magnetic field and an antitumor drug. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1990 Sep;81(9):956- 61.
[115] Ruiz-Gómez MJ, de la Peña L, Prieto-Barcia MI, et al. Influence of 1 and 25 Hz, 1.5 mT magnetic fields on antitumor drug potency in a human adenocarcinoma cell line. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002 Dec;23(8):578-85.
[116] Yuan LQ, Wang C, Zhu K, et al. The antitumor effect of static and extremely low frequency magnetic fields against nephroblastoma and neuroblastoma. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Jul;39(5):375-385.
[117] Akan Z, Aksu B, Tulunay A. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields affect the immune response of monocyte-derived macrophages to pathogens. Bioelectromagnetics 31:603–612, 2010.
[118] Bayir E, Bilgi E, Şendemir-Ürkmez A, et al. The effects of different intensities, frequencies and exposure times of extremely low-frequency electromagneticfields on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Mar;34(1):14-8.
[119] Cellini L, Grande R, Di Campli E, et al. Bacterial response to the exposure of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 29:302-311 (2008).
[120] Nakasono S, Ikehata M, Koana T, et al. A 50 Hz, 14 mT magnetic field is not mutagenic or co-mutagenic in bacterial mutation assays. Mutat Res 471(1-2):127-134, 2000.
[121] Pica F, Serafino A, Divizia M, et al. Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) on Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpes virus in BCBL-1 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 Apr;27(3):226-32.
[122] Strasak L, Vetterl V, Smarda J. Effects of low-frequency magnetic fields on bacteria escherichia coli. Bioelectrochemistry 55(1-2):161-164, 2002.
[123] Rosado MM, Simkó M, Mattsson M-O, et al. (2018) Immune-Modulating Perspectives for Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in Innate Immunity. Front. Public Health 6:85. Intensities listed in this study: 1.0 mT, 4 mT, .1 mT, 8uT, .5 mT, 1.5 mT, 10 uT, 1.2 uT, 3.5 mT, 6.6 uT, 5uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, .2 uT, 1 mT, 100 uT, 500 uT, 500 uT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 2.25 mT, 45 mT, 1 mT, 4 mT, 100 uT, 10 uT, 1.5 mT, 1.2 mT, 5 mT, 5 mT, 1 mT, 8 mT, Low intensity GHz, 2.8 mT, 100 uT, .3 mT, 8 mT, 12.5 mT,, 1 mT, 1 mT, 6 mT, 2.2 mT, 1 mT
[124] Cho H, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Neural stimulation on human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells by extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Biotechnol Prog. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):1329-35.
[125] Detlavs I, Karklinsch E, Murniece M, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields in treatment patients with diseases of nervous system (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 4th International Congress, 19-21 November, Zagreb, Croatia, 1998.
[126] Di Loreto S, Falone S, Caracciolo V, et al. Fifty hertz extremely low-frequency magnetic field exposure elicits redox and trophic response in rat-cortical neurons. J Cell Physiol. 2009 May;219(2):334-43.
[127] Hei WH, Byun SH, Kim JS, et al. Effects of electromagnetic field (PEMF) exposure at different frequency and duration on the peripheral nerve regeneration: in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Neurosci. 2016 Aug;126(8):739-48.
[128] Hei WH, Kim S, Park JC, et al. Schwann-like cells differentiated from human dental pulp stem cells combined with a pulsed electromagnetic field can improve peripheral nerve regeneration. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr; 37(3): 163–174.
[129] Jung I, Kim H, Noh R, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic fields on NGF induced neuronal differentiation of PC12 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 35:459–469, 2014.
[130] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Adamek, M, et al. The variable magnetic fields in the complex treatment of neurological diseases (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), 3rd International Congress, 29 February-3 March, Nancy, France, 1996.
[131] Neumüller J, Tohidast-Akrad M, Partsch G, et al. Changes in phagocytosis and the percentage of lymphocyte subsets during therapy with pulsed magnetic fields (PMF). Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1), 29-45 (1989).
[132] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[133] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosine receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol. 2002 May;136(1):57-66.
[134] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Ravani A, et al. Adenosine receptors as a biological pathway for the anti-inflammatory and beneficial effects of low frequency low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields. Mediators Inflamm (2017) 2017:2740963.
[135] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Targa M, et al. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field exposure on adenosine receptors in rat brain. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 May;33(4):279-87.
[136] Vianale G, Reale M, Amerio P, et al. Extremely low frequency electro- magnetic field enhances human keratinocyte cell growth and decreases proinflammatory chemokine production. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1189-96
[137] Vincenzi F, Targa M, Corciulo C, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields increased the anti-inflammatory effect of A2A and A3 adenosine receptors in human T/C-28a2 chondrocytes and hFOB 1.19 osteoblasts. PLoS One. 2013 May 31;8(5):e65561.
[138] Iashchenko LV, Chistiakov IV, Gakh LM, et al. Low-frequency magnetic fields in the combined therapy of inflammatory lung diseases. Probl Tuberk. 1988; 3: 53–6.
[139] Nindl G, Johnson MT, Balcavage WX. Low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on lymphocytes: Potential for treatment of inflammatory diseases. In: Ayrapetyan SN, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. Marcel Dekker, New York, 369–89, 2004.
[140] Lagroye I, Bersani F, Billaudel B, et al. Effects of ELF- and RF-EMF on the apoptotic process. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 13-8, p. 134, 2003.
[141] Li Y, Zhao L, Xing X, et al. Effects of different frequency electromagnetic fields on the differentiation of midbrain neural stem cells. Space Med Med Eng (Beijing). 2002 Oct;15(5):374-6.
[142] Nikolova L, Popov A, Klouchek E. Effect of interference current and low-frequency magnetic field on tissue regeneration. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult(3):19-23, 1984.
[143] Park JE, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Electromagnetic fields induce neural differentiation of human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells via ROS mediated EGFR activation. Neurochem Int. 2013 Mar;62(4):418-24.
[144] Wu H, Ren K, Zhao W, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on proliferation and differentiation of cultured mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2005;25(2):185-7.
[145] Zhang X, Zhang J, Qu X, et al. Effects of different extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on osteoblasts. Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(3):167-77.
[146] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54.
[147] Fan W, Qian F, Ma Q, et al. 50 Hz electromagnetic field exposure promotes proliferation and cytokine production of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 May 15;8(5):7394-404.
[148] Bech P, Lindberg L, Straaso B, et al. 2-year follow-up study of patients participating in our transcranial pulsating electromagnetic fields (T-PEMF) augmentation in treatment-resistant depression. Acta Neuropsychiatrica 2015.
[149] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[150] Martiny K, Lunde M, Bech P: Transcranial low voltage pulsed electromagnetic fields in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry 2010, 68:163–169.
[151] Massot O, Grimaldi B, Bailly J-M, et al. Magnetic field desensitizes 5-HT(1B) receptor in brain: pharmacological and functional studies. Brain Res 858(1):143-150, 2000.
[152] Rohan ML, Yamamoto RT, Ravichandran CT, et al. Rapid mood-elevating effects of low field magnetic stimulation in depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 1;76(3):186-93.
[153] Straaso B, Lauritzen L, Lunde M, et al. Dose-remission of pulsating electromagnetic fields as augmentation in therapy-resistant depression: a randomized, double blind controlled study. Acta Neuropsychiatrica 2014.
[154] Pawluk W, Dennis R, Tommerdahl M. Tracking the effects of pulsed electro-magnetic field (PEMF) on individuals with a history of traumatic brain injury with the Brain Gauge. Cortical Metrics Magazine – Vol. 1, pages 1-4. 2017. https://www.corticalmetrics.com/publications.
[155] Grant G, Cadossi R, Steinberg G. Protection against focal cerebral ischemia following exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics. 1994;15(3):205-16.
[156] Cichoń N, Bijak M, Czarny P, Miller E, Synowiec E, Sliwinski T, Saluk-Bijak J. Increase in Blood Levels of Growth Factors Involved in the Neuroplasticity Process by Using an Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field in Post-stroke Patients. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 Sep 26;10:294.
[157] Bier RR and Estersohn HS. A new treatment for charcot joint in the diabetic foot. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 77(2):63-69, 1987.
[158] Cieslar G, Sieron A, Radelli J. (1995) The estimation of therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic neuropathy including vibratory sensibility. Balneol Pol 37(1): 23-27.
[159] Laitl-Kobierska A, Cieslar G, Sieron A, et al. Influence of alternating extremely low frequency elf magnetic field on structure and function of pancreas in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 23(1):49-58, 2002.
[160] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Jochan K, et al. The therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Balneol Pol 37(2):44-47, 1995.
[161] Brola W, Wegrzyn W, Czernicki J. Effect of variable magnetic field on motor impairment and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Wiad Lek. 2002;55(3-4):136-43.
[162] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field therapy of multiple sclerosis by the Gyuling–Bordacs device: Double-blind, cross-over and open studies. J Bioelectr 1987; 6: 23–25.
[163] Mix E, Henssen HL, Lehmitz R, et al. Pulsing electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and migraine. Effect on cell volume and phagocytic activity of blood cells and clinical results (meeting abstract). J Bioelectr 9(2):242 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, 1990.
[164] Terlaki, G.; Gyorgy, B.; Payer, A. Clinical experiences by magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 175-179, 1987.
[165] Pastore A, Curr SB, Spinelli M. Interpretation of low-frequency pulsating magnetic field effects on patients affected by peripheral arteriopathy. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 14(1-3):207-213 Presented at the first international A.B.A.EM. Meeting, Venice, February 23-25, 1984, 1985.
[166] Guseo A. Physiological effects of pulsing electromagnetic field. In First Congress of European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), Brussels, Belgium, January 1992, s.31.
[167] Li F, Yuan Y, Guo Y, et al. Pulsed magnetic field accelerate proliferation and migration of cardiac microvascular endothelial cells.Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Jan;36(1):1-9.
[168] Ascherl R, Blumel G, Lechner F, et al. On the treatment of loosening of endoprostheses by means of pulsing electromagnetic fields. Bioelectricity Bioenerg 14:161–167, 1985.
[169] Konrad K, Sevcic K, Folde K, et al. 1996. Therapy with pulsed electromagnetic fields in aseptic loosening of total hip prostheses. A prospective study. Clin Rheumatol 15:325–328.
[170] Rispoli FP, Corolla FM, Mussner R. 1988. The use of low frequency pulsing electromagnetic fields in patients with painful hip prostheses. J Bioelectricity 7:181–187.
[171] Mayer-Wagner S, Passberger A, Sievers B, et al. Effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields on the chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011 May;32(4):283-90.
[172] Sherman RA, Acosta NM, Robson L. Treatment of migraine with pulsing electromagnetic fields: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Headache. 1999 Sep;39(8):567-75.
[173] Chen Y, Hong L, Zeng Y, et al. Power frequency magnetic fields induced reactive oxygen species-related autophagy in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014 Dec;57:108-14.
[174] Del Re B, Bersani F, Mesirca P, et al. Synthesis of DnaK we have helped and GroEL in Escherichia coli cells exposed to different magnetic field signals. Bioelectrochemistry. 2006 Sep;69(1):99-103.
[175] Singh S, Khanduja KL, Mittal PK. Influence of 50-hz sinusoidal electromagnetic field on hepatic and pulmonary phase I and II drug-metabolizing enzymes in mice. Electro Magnetobiol 17(3):343-350, 1998.
[176] Tsisel’skiĭ IuV. The effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on ocular hydrodynamics in open-angle glaucoma. Oftalmol Zh. 1990;(2):89-92.
[177] Skrinnik AV and Kovalchuk AS. The impulse electromagnetic field in the treatment of dystrophic lesions of the retina. Oftalmol Zh(8):459-462, 1989.
[178] Verzin AA. Action of gentamycin against a background of magnetotherapy of the anterior chamber in a traumatic infected erosion of the cornea. Antibiotiki. 1982 Oct;27(10):774-5.
[179] Kim HJ, Jung J, Park JH, et al. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields induce neural differentiation in bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2013 Aug 1;238(8):923-31.
[180] Sieron A, Labus L, Nowak P, Cieslar G, Brus H, Durczok A, Zagzil T, Kostrzewa RM, Brus R. Alternating extremely low frequency magnetic field increases turnover of dopamine and serotonin in rat frontal cortex. Bioelectromagnetics 25:426– 430, 2004.
[181] Lyskov EB, Juutilainen J, Jousmaki V, et al. Effects of 45 Hz magnetic fields on the functional state of the human brain. Bioelectromagnetics (1993)14: 87–95.
[182] Nindl G, Spandau DF, Vesper DN, et al. Therapeutic potential of elf magnetic fields in inflammatory skin diseases. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. 13-1, p. 73-74, 2000.
[183] Yurina NA, Radostina AI, Savin BM, et al. Mast cells as a test of body state during electromagnetic exposure of varying intensity. Aviakosm Ekolog Med 31(2):43-47, 1997.
[184] Vannoni D, Albanese A, Battisti E, et al. In vitro exposure of human osteoarthritic chondrocytes to ELF fields and new therapeutic application of musically modulated electromagnetic fields: biological evidence. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2012 Jan-Mar;26(1):39-49.
[185] Veronesi F, Torricelli P, Giavaresi G, et al. In vivo effect of two different pulsed electromagnetic field frequencies on osteoarthritis. Orthop Res. 2014 May;32(5):677-85.
[186] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[187] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field effects small intestine motility. European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 33, 1993.
[188] Iorio R, Monache SD, Bennato F, et al.Involvement of mitochondrial activity in mediating ELF-EMF stimulatory effect on human sperm motility. Bioelectromagnetics 32:15–27, 2011.
[189] Ottani V, Monti MG, Morocutti M, et al. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic fields on regenerating rat liver after partial hepatectomy. J Anat 139(2):253-263, 1984.
[190] Ottani V, Monti MG, Morocutti M, et al. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic fields on regenerating rat liver after partial hepatectomy. J Anat 139(2):253-263, 1984.
[191] Randelli P, Menon A, Ragone V, et al. Effects of the pulsed electromagnetic field PST® on human tendon stem cells: a controlled laboratory study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Aug 18;16:293.
[192] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[193] Benazzo F, Zanon G, Pederzini L et al. Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: Prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(6): 595–601.
[194] Thamsborg G, Florescu A, Oturai P et al. (July 2005) Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with pulsed electromagnetic fields: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Osteoarthr Cartil 13(7): 575–581.
[195] Rodemann HP, Wecke P, Jaeschke M. Low-frequency electromagnetic fields induce premature terminal differentiation of in-vitro cultured human skin and lung fibroblasts. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 27(3):269- 280, 1992.
[196] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Zmudzinski J. The therapeutical effect of variable magnetic field in patients with multiple sclerosis (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 39, 1993.
[197] Lee HM, Kwon UH, Kim H, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates cellular proliferation in human into vertebral disc cells. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:954–9.
[198] De Loecker W, Cheng N, Delport PH. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on membrane transport. In Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine. Ed’s: O’Connor ME, Bentall, RHC, Monahan, JC. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 45–59.
[199] Cheing GL, Wan JW, Kai Lo S. (November 2005) Ice and pulsed electromagnetic field to reduce pain and swelling after distal radius fractures. J Rehabil Med 37(6): 372–377.
[200] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[201] Huegel J, Chan PYW, Weiss SN, et al.. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy alters early healing in a rat model of rotator cuff injury and repair: Potential mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct 17.
[202] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for migraine and other headaches: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther 18(3):101-109, 2001.
[203] Sandyk R. The influence of the pineal gland on migraine and cluster headaches and effects of treatment with picoTesla magnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov-Dec;67(1-4):145-71, 1992.
[204] Thomas AW, Prato FS. Magnetic field based pain therapeutics and diagnostics. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 24th Annual Meeting, Quebec City, PQ, Canada, June, 2002
[205] Thuile C, Walzl M. (2002) Evaluation of electromagnetic fields in the treatment of pain in patients with lumbar radiculopathy or the whiplash syndrome. Neuro Rehabilitation.17: 63-7.
[206] Ay S, Evcik D. (April 2009) The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 29(6): 663–666.
[207] Fleming JL, Persinger MA, Koren SA. (1994) Magnetic pulses elevate nociceptive thresholds: Comparisons with opiate receptor compounds in normal and seizure-induced brain-damaged rats. Electro Magnetobiol. 13(1): 67–75.
[208] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics
[209] Foley-Nolan D, Moore K, Codd M et al. (1992) Low energy high frequency pulsed electromagnetic therapy for acute whiplash injuries. A double blind randomized controlled study. Scand J Rehabil Med 24(1): 51–59.
[210] Forestier R, Françon A, Saint-Arromand F et al. (April 2007a) Are SPA therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy effective for chronic neck pain? Randomised clinical trial. First part: Clinical evaluation. Ann Readapt Med Phys 50(3): 140–147.
[211] Thomas AW, Graham K, Prato FS et al. (Winter 2007) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Res Manage 12(4): 249–258.
[212] Hedén P, Pilla AA. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on postoperative pain: A double-blind randomized pilot study in breast augmentation patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(4): 660–66.
[213] Jorgensen WA, Frome BM, Wallach C. Electrochemical therapy of pelvic pain: Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) on tissue trauma. Eur J Surg. 1994;160(574 Suppl): 83–86.
[214] Reed MW, Bickerstaff DR, Hayne CR, Wyman A, Davies J. Pain relief after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Ineffectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic energy. Br J Clin Pract. 1987;41(6): 782–84.
[215] Mostert S and Kesselring J. Effect of pulsed magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients withmultiple sclerosis – a randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 302–305.
[216] Piatkowski J, Kern S and Ziemssen T. Effect of BEMER magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized double – blind controlled trial. J [434] [434] Altern Complement Med 2009; 15: 507–511.Sandyk R and Dann LC. Weak electromagnetic fields attenuate tremor in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. 79 (3-4): 199-212, 1994.
[217] Sandyk, R. Premenstrual exacerbation of symptoms in multiple sclerosis is attenuated by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. 83 (3-4): 187-198, 1995.
[218] Sandyk R. Treatment with weak electromagnetic fields improves fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis. IntJ Neurosci. Feb;84: 177–186, 1996.
[219] Sandyk R. Application of weak electromagnetic fields facilitates sensory–motor integration in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:101 – 110, 1996.
[220] Sandyk R. Weak electromagnetic fields potentiate the effects of 4-aminopyridine in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:125 – 129, 1996.
[221] Sandyk, R. Immediate recovery of cognitive functions and resolution of fatigue by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci Aug;90(1-2):59-74, 1997.
[222] Sandyk R. Resolution of sleep paralysis by weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):145-57, 1997.
[223] Sandyk R. Treatment with electromagnetic fields reverses the long-term clinical course of a patient with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):177-85, 1997.
[224] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching--a behavioral syndrome associated with transcranial application of electromagnetic fields in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):107-13, 1998.
[225] Sandyk R. Serotonergic neuronal atrophy with synaptic inactivation, not axonal degeneration, are the main hallmarks of multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):133-40, 1998.
[226] Amirifalah Z, Firoozabadi SM, Shafiei SA. Local exposure of brain central areas to a pulsed ELF magnetic field for a purposeful change in EEG. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2013 Jan;44(1):44-52.
[227] Baker-Price LA, Persinger MA. Weak, but complex pulsed magnetic fields may reduce depression following traumatic brain injury. Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Oct;83(2):491-8.
[228] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Ossenkopp K-P, et al. Sex differences in conditioned taste aversion and in the effects of exposure to a specific pulsed magnetic field in deer mice Peromyscus Maniculatus. Physiol Behav 71(3-4):237-249, 2000.
[229] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Prato FS. A comparison of the effects of a 100 ut specific pulsed magnetic field and diazepam on anxiety-related behaviors in male CF1 mice. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 21st Annual Meeting, 20-24 June, Long Beach, CA, Abstract No. P-91, p. 129-130, 1999.
[230] Kalkan MT, Korpinar MA, Seker S, et al. The effect of the 50 Hz frequency sinusoidal magnetic field on the stress-related behavior of rats. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Biomedical Engineering Days, 20-22 May, Istanbul, Turkey, p.78-81, 1998.
[231] Semenova TP, Medvinskaia NI, Bliskovka GI, et al. Influence of electromagnetic fields on the emotional behavior of rats. Radiats Biol Radioecol 40(6):693-695, 2000.
[232] Wever R. Effects of low-level, low-frequency fields on human circadian rhythms; Neurosci-ResProgram- Bull. 1977 Jan; 15(1): p. 39-45.
[233] Wever, RA. (1987) The electromagnetic environment and the circadian rhythms of human subjects. In: M. Grandolfo, SM. Michaelson and A. Rindi (Eds.), Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Static and ELF Electromagnetic Fields, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
[234] Kavaliers M, Ossenkopp KP, Lipa SM. Day-night rhythms in the inhibitory effects of 60 Hz magnetic fields on opiate-mediated 'analgesic' behaviors of the land snail, Cepaea nemoralis. Brain Res. 1990 May 28;517(1-2):276-82.
[235] Kavaliers M, Ossenkopp KP, Prato FS, Innes DG, Galea LA, Kinsella DM, Perrot-Sinal TS. Spatial learning in deer mice: sex differences and the effects of endogenous opioids and 60 Hz magnetic fields. J Comp Physiol A. 1996 Nov;179(5):715-24
[236] Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, et al. (2006) Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Res Manag. Summer; 11(2): 85–90.
[237] Jadidi M, Biat SM, Sameni HR, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells that located in the electromagnetic fields improves rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2016 Jul;19(7):741-8.
[238] Sandyk R. Reversal of cognitive impairment in an elderly parkinsonian patient by transcranial application of picoTesla electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Sep;91(1-2):57-68, 1997.
[239] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves the response to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Oct;91(3-4):189-97, 1997.
[240] Sandyk R. Freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease is improved by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Mar;85(1-2):111-24, 1996.
[241] Sandyk R. Speech impairment in Parkinson’s disease is improved by transcranial application of electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov;92(1-2):63-72, 1997.
[242] Sandyk R. Reversal of a body image disorder (macrosomatognosia) in Parkinson’s disease by treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Feb;93(1-2):43-54, 1998.
[243] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching induced by transcranial application of AC pulsed electromagnetic fields in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Mar;97(1-2):139-45, 1999
[244] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves olfactory function in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Apr;97(3-4):225-33, 1999.
[245] Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, et al.Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.
[246] Goritskaya I, Vinokurov V, Uritsky V, et al. The treatment effect of elf magnetic fields on patients with ovarian tumours. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. P-16A, p. 99, 1995.
[247] Ning JT, Gajendran V, Porter C, et al. Potential clinical application of taxol and power frequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human prostate disorders. Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, 8-13 June, Bologna, Italy, Abstract No. I-7, p. 136-137.
[248] Zimmerman J, Pennison M, Brezovich I, et al. Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. British Journal of Cancer 2012, 106:307 – 313.
[249] Barbault A, Costa FP, Bottger B, et al. Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 14;28(1):51.
[250] Evangelou A, Toliopoulos I, Giotis C, Metsios A, Verginadis I, Simos Y, Havelas K, Hadziaivazis G, Karkabounas S. Functionality of natural killer cells from end-stage cancer patients exposed to coherent electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Mar;30(1):46-56.
[251] Ghannam MM, Al-Otaibi HA, Alanazy ES, et al. Magnetic field potential effects on the doxorubicin therapeutic activity in Ehrlich tumor growth. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021 Apr;28(4):2566-2574.
[252] Anninos P, Kotini A, Adamopoulos A, et al. Magnelic stimulation can modulate seizures in epileptic patients. Brain Topogr. 2003 Fall;16(1):57-64.
[253] Anninos PA, Tsagas N, Jacobson JI, et al. The biological effects of magnetic stimulation in epileptic patients. Panminerva Med 1999 Sep;41(3):207-15.
[254] Antimonii GD and Salamov RA. Action of a modulated electromagnetic field on experimentally induced epileptiform brain activity in rats. Biull Eksp Biol Med 1980 Feb;89(2):145-8.
[255] Fadakar K, Saba V, Farzampour S. Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (50 Hz) on pentylenetetrazol-induced seizures in mice. Acta Neurol Belg. 2013 Jun;113(2):173-7.
[256] Jacobson JI. Pineal-hypothalamic tract mediation of picoTesla magnetic fields in the treatment of epilepsy and parkinson’s disease (meeting abstract). Bioelectromagnetics Society, 16th Annual Meeting, 12-17 June, Copenhagen, Denmark, Abstract No. P-69, p. 100, 1994.
[257] Ossenkopp KP, Cain DP. Inhibitory effects of acute exposure to low-intensity 60-Hz magnetic fields on electrically kindled seizures in rats. Brain Res 1988 Mar 1;442(2):255-60.
[258] Persinger MA, Saroka KS. Comparable proportions of classes of experiences and intracerebral consequences for surgical stimulation and external application of weak magnetic field patterns: implications for converging effects in complex partial seizures. Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Apr;27(1):220-4.
[259] Potschka H, Thun-Battersby S, Loscher W. Effect of low-intensity 50-Hz magnetic fields on kindling acquisition and fullykindled seizures in rats. Brain Res 1998 Nov 2;809(2):269-76.
[260] Nelson FR, Zvirbulis R, Pilla AA. Non-invasive electromagnetic field therapy produces rapid and substantial pain reduction in early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blind pilot study. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(8): 2169–73.
[261] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics 13(4):445–451.
[262] Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(3): 190–96.
[263] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu BF. (February 2006) The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of cervical osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 26(4): 320–324.
[264]Rehacek, J.; Straub, J.; Benova, H. The effect of magnetic fields on coxarthroses. Fysiatr Revmatol Vestn 60(2):66-68, 1982.
[265] Webb CY, Lo SSL, Evans JH. 2003. Prevention of diabetic foot using low frequency magnetotherapy. The Diabetic Foot 6:138–150.
[266] Cañedo-Dorantes L, Soenksen LR, García-Sánchez C, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of systemic extremely low frequency magnetic fields used in the healing of diabetic foot ulcers—phase II data. Arch Med Res. 2015 Aug;46(6):470-8.
[267] Elrashid, Nesrein & Hamada, Hamada & Abdelmoety, Alshaimaa & Soliman, Gaber & Abbas, Rami. (2019). Additional effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields to laser therapy on management of diabetic foot ulcer: A single blind randomized controlled trial. Bioscience Research. 15. 3322-3328.
[268] Maestú C, Blanco M, Nevado A, et al. Reduction of pain thresholds in fibromyalgia after very low-intensity magnetic stimulation: a double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain Res Manag. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):e101-6.
[269] Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, et al. (2006) Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Res Manag. Summer; 11(2): 85–90.
[270] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu F, et al. (2009) Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain. Oct;25(8): 722-8.
[271] Fischer G and Kokoschinegg PJ. The treatment of sleep disturbances and meteorosensitivity by pulsed magnetic fields of low intensity. Bioelectr 9(2):243 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Hungary, 1990.
[272] Pasche B. Low energy emission therapy (leet) for the treatment of insomnia and anxiety. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. P-151, p. 240-241, 2000.
[273] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for insomnia: a double-blind, placebo- controlled study. Adv Ther Jul-Aug; 18(4):174-180, 2001.
[274] Persinger MA, Hoang V, Baker-Price L. Entrainment of stage 2 sleep spindles by weak, transcerebral magnetic stimulationin an “epileptic” woman. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009; 28(4):374-82.
[275] Tworoger SS, Davis S, Emerson SS, et al. Effect of a nighttime magnetic field exposure on sleep patterns in young women. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 1;160(3):224-9.
[276] But I and Varda NM. Functional magnetic stimulation: a new method for the treatment of girls with primary nocturnal enuresis? J Pediatr Urol. 2006 Oct;2(5):415-8.
[277] But I, Faganelj M, Sostaric A. Functional magnetic stimulation for mixed urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1644-6.
[278] But I. Conservative treatment of female urinary incontinence with functional magnetic stimulation. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):558-61.
[279] But I. Functional magnetic stimulation for treatment of urinary incontinence – presentation of Pulsegen device. #433. ICS 2002 Annual Conference, Heidelberg, 28th - 30th August 2002. Meeting abstract.
[280] Di Carlo AL, Farrell, JM, Litovitz TA. Myocardial protection conferred by electromagnetic fields. Circulation 99(6):813-816, 1999.
[281] Scherlag BJ, Yamanashi WS, Hou Y, et al. Magnetism and cardiac arrhythmias. Cardiol Rev. 2004 Mar-Apr;12(2):85-96.
[282] Fitzsimmons RJ, Baylink DJ. Growth factors and electromagnetic fields in bone. Clin Plast Surg 1994 Jul;21(3):401-6.
[283] Hambly MF and Mooney V. Effect of smoking and pulsed electromagnetic fields on intradiscal pH in rabbits. Spine 17(6S):S83-S85, 1992.
[284] Mishima S. The effect of long-term pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation on experimental osteoporosis of rats. J UOEH 1988 Mar 1;10(1):31-45
[285] Rubin CT, McLeod KJ, Lanyon LE. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989 Mar;71(3):411-7.
[286] Poh PSP, Seeliger C, Unger M, et al. Osteogenic Effect and Cell Signaling Activation of Extremely Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields in Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2018 Jul 12;2018
[287] Goodwin T. Physiological and molecular genetic effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields on human neuronal cells. NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States. NASA/TP-2003-212054.
[288] Li Y, Yan X, Liu J, Let al. Pulsed electromagnetic field enhances brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression through L-type voltage-gated calcium channel- and Erk-dependent signaling pathways in neonatal rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. Neurochem Int. 2014 Sep;75:96-104.
[289] Longo FM, Yang T, et al. Electromagnetic fields influence NGF activity and levels following sciatic nerve transection. J Neurosci Res 55(2):230-237, 1999.
[290] Budak A, Zyss T, Bogusz B, et al Effect of low frequency alternating magnetic field on the growth in vitro of some pathogenic skin dermatophytes. Alpe Adria Microbiol J 7(3):191-196, 1998.
[291] Golbach LA, Scheer MH, Cuppen JJ, et al. Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Enhances Extracellular Trap Formation by Human Neutrophils through the NADPH Pathway. J Innate Immun. 2015;7(5):459-65.
[292] Mittenzwey R, Sussmuth R, Mei W. Effects of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on bacteria -- the question of a co-stressing factor. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 40(1):21-27, 1996.
[293] Winters WD, Brune JL, Darnell B. Virus suppressor factors induced in cultured cells by exposure in vitro to 60 Hz AC magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 8th Annual Meeting, 1-5 June 1986, Madison, WI, p. 31, 1986.
[294] Zhang J, Xu C, Wan Y, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic field on production of mannatide by α-hemolytic Streptococcus. Bioelectromagnetics. 37:331–337, 2016.
[295] M. Black, L. Soo, V. Papstein, Effects of low frequency magnetic fields on Na,K-ATPase activity, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Volume 38, Issue 2,1995, Pages 267-273,
[296] Zhang S, Clark M, Liu X, et al. The Effects of Bio-inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies. Emerging Science Journal 2019 Dec;3(6):369-381.
[297] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[298] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[299] Wang KW , Hladky SB . An upper limit for the effect of low frequency magnetic fields on ATP - sensitive potassium channels . Biochim Biophys Acta . 1994 ; 1195 : 218–222
Chapter 6 References
[1] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54. {20 mT did not work}
[2] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[3] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[4] Bassett, C.A.L., 1995. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. In: Blank, M. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields: Biological interactions and Mechanisms. Advances in chemistry Series, vol. 250. American chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 261–275
[5] Rubin, C.T., McLeod, K.J., Lanyon, L.E., 1989. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 71 (3), 411–417.
[6] Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
[7] Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[8] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[9] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[10] https://youtu.be/9WQ7WXdQreI?si=58si0waQJAWkCQ5e&t=1133
[11] Ellis WV. (1993) Pain control using high-intensity pulsed magnetic stimulation. Bioelectromagnetics. 14(6): 553-556.
[12] Hodaj H, Alibeu JP, Payen JF, et al. Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jul-Aug;8(4):801-7.
[13] Lamusuo S, Hirvonen J, Lindholm P, et al. Neurotransmitters behind pain relief with transcranial magnetic stimulation - positron emission tomography evidence for release of endogenous opioids. Eur J Pain. 2017 May 11.
[14] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Ménard-Lefaucheur I, et al. Neuropathic pain controlled for more than a year by monthly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5.
[15] Ma SM, Ni JX, Li XY. et al. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2162-70.
[16] Shehata HS, Esmail EH, Abdelalim A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 7;9:771-777.
[17] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I et al. (April 2004) Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75(4): 612–616.
[18] Picarelli H, Teixeira MJ, de Andrade DC et al. (November 2010) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I. J Pain 11(11): 1203–1210.
[19] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[20] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[21] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[22] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[23] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
[24] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[25] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[26] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[27] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[28] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[29] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[30] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[31] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[32] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[33] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[34] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[35] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[36] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[37] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[38] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dOBOhuqzdBhZOAANnvT_2KCFWAdNxNc1WloU33_KRKM
Chapter 7 References
[1] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[2] Wang KW , Hladky SB . An upper limit for the effect of low frequency magnetic fields on ATP - sensitive potassium channels . Biochim Biophys Acta . 1994 ; 1195 : 218–222
[3] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[4] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[5] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[6] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[7] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
[8] Meyers, B. PEMF, The 5th element of health. Balboa Press 2013.
[9] Dennis R, Tommerdahl A, Dennis A. (2020). Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 4: Effect of PEMF on seed germination; evidence of triphasic inverse hormesis. Journal of Science and Medicine; 3(1):144. https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/58
[10] Massari L, Benazzo F, De Mattei M, Setti S, Fini M; CRES Study Group. Effects of electrical physical stimuli on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:152-61.
[11] Palmer S, Rycroft M, Cermack M. Solar and geomagnetic activity, extremely low frequency magnetic and electric fields and human health at Earth’s surface. Surv Geophys 2006;27:557–95.
[12] Cherry NJ. Human intelligence: The brain, an electromagnetic system synchronized by the Schumann Resonance signal. Med Hypoth 2003;60:843–4.
[13] Seal, J. Signal Design Step by Step Magnetic Fields in Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine (pp.86-88). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov Duplicates removed
Chapter 8 References
[1] Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 1979, 109: 273-284.
[2] Guo H, Kang L, Qin W, Li Y. Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure and Childhood Leukemia: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Altern Ther Health Med. 2023 Nov;29(8):75-81. PMID: 37678874.
[3] Ghahremani, S., Shiroudbakhshi, K., Salimi Kordasiabi, A. H., FiroozBakht, M., Hosseinzadegan, M., Ashrafinia, F., Rahafard, S. (2020). 'Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukemia: An Overview of Meta-Analysis', International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(5), pp. 11361-11365
[4] Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(11):906-15
[5] Brabant C, Geerinck A, Beaudart C, Tirelli E, Geuzaine C, Bruyère O. Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Mar 15;38(2):229-253.
[6] Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, Li S, et al. Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leukemia research. 2014;38(3):269-74.
[7] Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, Dockerty J, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British journal of cancer. 2000;83(5):692-8.
[8] Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, Lowenthal RM, Mezei G, Oksuzyan S, Schüz J, Swanson J, Tittarelli A, Vinceti M, Wunsch Filho V. Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer. 2010 Sep 28;103(7):1128-35
[9] Michaelis, J., H. Schuz, R. Meiner, E. Zenmann, J.-P. Grigat, P. Kaatsch, U. Kaletsch, A. Miesner, K. Brinkmann, W. Kalkner and H. Karner. 1998. Combined risk estimates for two German population-based case-control studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood acute leukemia. Epidemiology 9:92-94.
[10] Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, Robison LL, Kaune WT, Friedman DR, Severson RK, Haines CM, Hartsock CT, Niwa S, Wacholder S, Tarone RE. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 3;337(1):1-7.
[11] Wertheimer N, Savitz DA, Leeper E. Childhood cancer in relation to indicators of magnetic fields from ground current sources. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(2):86-96
[12] jstor.orgc
[13] 60 Hz unhealthy because if can cause fibrillation https://jmkengineering.com/electric-shock-human-body
[14] Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 2004b; 112:687- 94.
[15] Report on Travel to Almaty, Kazakhstan to attend the International Conference: "Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health" September 4-12, 2003 by Karl Maret, M.D., M.Eng. on behalf of the Foundation for Alternative Medicine, Washington, D.C. Specially Note section - Yuri Grigoriev : "EMF as a Risk Factor for the Population's Health (Current State of the Problem)”.
[16] Johansson, Olle. (2006). Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment. Electromagnetic biology and medicine. 25. 245-58
[17] Beale IL and Pearce NE. Psychological and physical health correlates of 50 hz magnetic field exposure in humans living near extra-high-voltage transmission lines. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. 20-1, p. 87, 1995.
[18] Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of a melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. 1999;266:209–212.
[19] Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;(Suppl 7):S86–97.
[20] Stevens RG. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:135–40
Melatonin Receptor Disrupted by EMF
[21] Girgert R, Hanf V, Emons G, Gründker C. Signal transduction of the melatonin receptor MT1 is disrupted in breast cancer cells by electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:237–45
[22] Havas M, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity and electrical hypersensitivity: Five case studies. World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity. 25–26 October, Prague, Czech Republic; 2004, available online at: http:/
/www.stetzerelectric.com/filters/research/havas_stetzer_ who04.pdf
[23] Levallois, P. 2002. Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: A review of the literature. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110:613-618.
[24] Levallois, P. 1999. Study Review of Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure. Report to The Public Health Institute and the California Department of Health Services.
[25] Armstrong B, Theriault G, Guenel P, Deadman J, Goldberg M, Heroux P. Association between exposure to pulsed electromagnetic fields and cancer in electric utility workers in Quebec, Canada, and France. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140(9):805–20.
[26] Milham S, Ossiander EM. Historical evidence that residential electrification caused the emergence of the childhood leukemia peak. Med Hypoth 2001;56(3):290–5.
[27] Westman JA, Ferketich KA, Kauffman RM et al. Low cancer incidence rates in Ohio Amish. Cancer Causes Control
2010;21:69–75.
[28] La Quinta Middle School Cancer Cluster Report by Dr. Sam Milham and Lloyd Morgan indicates strong evidence of a relationship between power quality and cancer.
[29] Medical Alert - "An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure" - Leukemia and Diabetes Increase with Electrical Exposure (EMF), October 26, 2004
[30] Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Linked to Neuro-Endocrine Stress Syndrome: Increased Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, & Cancer, November 2005
[31] Milham S, Morgan LL. A new electromagnetic field exposure metric: High frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school. Am J Ind Med 2008;51(8):579–86.
[32] Reynolds P, Elkin EP, Layefsky ME, Lee JM. Cancer in California school employees. Am J Ind Med 1999;36:271.
[33] Milham S. Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of diseases of civilization. Med Hypoth 2010;74(2):337–45.
[34] Dode AC et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 2011;409(19):3649–65.
[35] Milham S, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity, chronic stress, neurotransmitters and disease. Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Dec;32(4):500-7.
[36] Milham S. Evidence that dirty electricity is causing the world- wide epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med 2013;33(1):75–8.
[37] Havas, M. (2006b). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25, 259-268.
[38] Havas M. Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):135-46
[39] Li DK, Chen H, Odouli R. Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:945–50.
[40] Li DK, Ferber J, Odouli R et al. Prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep 2012, doi:10.1038/srep00540.
[41] Havas M, Colling D. Wind turbines make waves: Why some resident near wind turbines become ill. Bull Sci, Technol Soc 2011;31(5):414–26.
[42] Havas, M., & Olstad, A. (2008). Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota Schools. Science of the Total Environment, 402, 157-162.
[43] Havas, M., Illiatovitch, M., & Proctor, C. (2004, October). Teacher and student response to the removal of dirty electricity by the Graham/Stetzer filter at Willow Wood school in Toronto, Canada. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Biological Effects of EMFs, Kos, Greece.
[44] Legislative Alert! Uncontrolled Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) in Homes, Schools, and Workplaces Cause Increased Heart Rate, High Blood Pressure, and Cardiovascular Disease in Michigan. You Can Do Something about Control of Electric Power Quality and Disease., April 2006
[45] Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088. Epub 2013 Jun 26
[46] New Discoveries - Dirty Electrical Power Affects Cows, September 11, 2002
[47] Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Affect Milk Production and Behavior of Cows; Results Using Shielded Neutral Isolation Transformer, July 2004
[48] Effects of Excessive Electrical Exposure on Human and Animal Health, Special Edition for Ingham County Farm Bureau, September 13, 2007
[49] "The Health Effects of Electrical Pollution" published by the National Foundation for Alternative Medicine.
[50] A report to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) made on June 5, 2008 by Dr. Magda Havas. The report is titled "Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions."
[51] Appeal to Fellow Citizens -- Help Remove Cancer-Promoting EMFs From Powerlines, Homes, Schools, and Workplaces, March 7, 2004
[52] Electric Transmission Lines: Individual Rights vs. Utility Rights of Public Domain, January 10, 2005
[53] Magnetic Fields in Homes and School: Source and Mitigation in Our Home, May 2005
[54] Legislative Letter To Members of the Michigan House of Representatives, Michigan Senate, and Adminstrative Officers, April 2006
[55] microwavesnews.com
[56] iarc.fr
[57] Discussion between Lloyd Burrell and Girish Kumar, PhD, from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, as part of ElectricSense.com's EMF Experts Solutions Club. See IARC's official website which now talks about "cellphone radiation might cause cancer": who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
[58] npic.orst.edu
[59] microwavesnews.com
[60] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones
[61] https://bioinitiative.org/
[62] Henrietta Nittby; "Radiofrequency and extremely low frequency effects on the blood-brain barrier"; Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine; Volume 27, 2008 Neil Cherry; "EMF/EMR Reduces Melatonin" July 26, 2000. www.feb.se
[63] Hyla Cass, M.D.; "Are Cell Phones and Wi-Fi Hazardous to Your Health?" October 13, 2010, www.huffingtonpost.com
[64] Conrado Avendano et al., "Use of laptop computers connected to internet through WiFi decreases sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation"; Fertility and Sterility Vol. 97, No. 1, January 2012
[65] Singh S, Khanduja KL, Mittal PK. Influence of 50 Hz sinusoidal electromagnetic field on hepatic and pulmonary phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes in mice. Electro Magnetobiol 17 (3): 343-350, 1998.
[66] George, I., Geddis, M.S., Lill, Z., Lin, H., Gomez, T., Blank, M., Oz, M.C., and Goodman, R. (2008). Myocardial function improved by electromagnetic field induction of stress protein hsp70. J Cell Physiol 216, 816–823.
[67] Blank M, Goodman R. 2004. Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced interactions. J Cell Physiol 199: 359–363.
[68] Chen Y, Hong L, Zeng Y, et al. Power frequency magnetic fields induced reactive oxygen species-related autophagy in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014 Dec;57:108-14.
[69] Del Re B, Bersani F, Mesirca P, et al. Synthesis of DnaK we have helped and GroEL in Escherichia coli cells exposed to different magnetic field signals. Bioelectrochemistry. 2006 Sep;69(1):99-103.
[70] https://magdahavas.com/health-issues/dr-oz-on-pemf-therapy-and-pain-control/
[71] Cell Phone Radiation: The Shocking Truth Behind the Convenience https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/cell-phone-radiation-the-shocking-truth-behind-the-convenience.html
Chapter 9 References
[1] https://zhcoils.com/functions-of-ferrite-rod-inductor-coils/
Chapter 10 References
[1] Beale IL and Pearce NE. Psychological and physical health correlates of 50 hz magnetic field exposure in humans living near extra-high-voltage transmission lines. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. 20-1, p. 87, 1995.
[2] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[3] jstor.orgc
[4] Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of a melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. 1999;266:209–212.
[5] Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;(Suppl 7):S86–97.
[6] Stevens RG. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:135–40
Melatonin Receptor Disrupted by EMF
[7] Girgert R, Hanf V, Emons G, Gründker C. Signal transduction of the melatonin receptor MT1 is disrupted in breast cancer cells by electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:237–45
[8] 60 Hz unhealthy because if can cause fibrillation https://jmkengineering.com/electric-shock-human-body
[9] Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 1979, 109: 273-284.
[10] Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 2004b; 112:687- 94.
[11] Guo H, Kang L, Qin W, Li Y. Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure and Childhood Leukemia: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Altern Ther Health Med. 2023 Nov;29(8):75-81. PMID: 37678874.
[12] Ghahremani, S., Shiroudbakhshi, K., Salimi Kordasiabi, A. H., FiroozBakht, M., Hosseinzadegan, M., Ashrafinia, F., Rahafard, S. (2020). 'Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukemia: An Overview of Meta-Analysis', International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(5), pp. 11361-11365
[13] Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(11):906-15
[14] Brabant C, Geerinck A, Beaudart C, Tirelli E, Geuzaine C, Bruyère O. Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Mar 15;38(2):229-253.
[15] Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, Li S, et al. Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leukemia research. 2014;38(3):269-74.
[16] Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, Dockerty J, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British journal of cancer. 2000;83(5):692-8.
[17] Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, Lowenthal RM, Mezei G, Oksuzyan S, Schüz J, Swanson J, Tittarelli A, Vinceti M, Wunsch Filho V. Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer. 2010 Sep 28;103(7):1128-35
[18] Michaelis, J., H. Schuz, R. Meiner, E. Zenmann, J.-P. Grigat, P. Kaatsch, U. Kaletsch, A. Miesner, K. Brinkmann, W. Kalkner and H. Karner. 1998. Combined risk estimates for two German population-based case-control studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood acute leukemia. Epidemiology 9:92-94.
[19] Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, Robison LL, Kaune WT, Friedman DR, Severson RK, Haines CM, Hartsock CT, Niwa S, Wacholder S, Tarone RE. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 3;337(1):1-7.
[20] Report on Travel to Almaty, Kazakhstan to attend the International Conference: "Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health" September 4-12, 2003 by Karl Maret, M.D., M.Eng. on behalf of the Foundation for Alternative Medicine, Washington, D.C. Specially Note section - Yuri Grigoriev : "EMF as a Risk Factor for the Population's Health (Current State of the Problem)”.
[21] Johansson, Olle. (2006). Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment. Electromagnetic biology and medicine. 25. 245-58
[22] Wertheimer N, Savitz DA, Leeper E. Childhood cancer in relation to indicators of magnetic fields from ground current sources. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(2):86-96
[23] https://youtu.be/Lm-coRuD_NA?si=qHBmRo7SByel9H3z
[24] Weaver JC, Astumian RD. The response of living cells to very weak electric fields: the thermal noise limit. Science. 1990 Jan 26;247(4941):459-62
[25] Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of a melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. 1999;266:209–212.
[26] Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;(Suppl 7):S86–97.
[27] Stevens RG. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:135–40
Melatonin Receptor Disrupted by EMF
[28] Girgert R, Hanf V, Emons G, Gründker C. Signal transduction of the melatonin receptor MT1 is disrupted in breast cancer cells by electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:237–45
[29] A. P. Castano et al., “Low-level laser therapy for zymosan-induced arthritis in rats: Importance of illumination time,” Lasers Surgery Med. 39(6), 543–550 (2007).
[30] R. J. Lanzafame et al., “Reciprocity of exposure time and irradiance on energy density during photoradiation on wound healing in a murine pressure ulcer model,” Lasers Surgery Med. 39(6), 534–542 (2007).
[31] J. T. Hashmi et al., “Effect of Pulsing in Low-Level Light Therapy,” Lasers Surgery Med. 42(6), 450–466 (2010).
[32] Abel EL, Hendrix SL, McNeeley GS, O'Leary ES, Mossavar-Rahmani Y, Johnson SR, Kruger M. Use of electric blankets and association with prevalence of endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jun;16(3):243-50
[33] Blank, Martin. Overpowered: The Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) and What You Can Do about It. Seven Stories Press; Illustrated edition (September 29, 2015)
[34] Seal, J. Signal Design Step by Step Magnetic Fields in Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine (pp.86-88). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov Duplicates removed
Chapter 11
None
Conclusion
[1] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[2] Massari, L.; Benazzo, F.; Moretti, B.; Dallari, D.; Perugia, D.; Meani, E.; Cadossi, R. Electrical Stimulation of Osteogenesis: Efficacy and Technologies Compared. GIOT 2011, 6, 1–8.
[3] Data from above study [3] was partially communicated at the congress: 2nd Trauma Meeting, Milano Marittima, 15-17 October 2009 (Ravazzani P. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for bone regeneration: analysis of existing technology and distribution of the magnetic field).
(Organized Chapter By Chapter)
Introduction
[1] Griffiths DJ, Introduction to Electrodynamics, 5th ed, Cambridge University, 2024.
[2] Purcell EM, Morin DJ, Electricity and Magnetism, 3rd ed, Cambridge University, 2013.
Feynman RP, Leighton RB, Sands M, Electromagnetism and Matter, Basic Books, 2010.
[3] Jackson JD, Classical Electrodynamics, 3rd ed, Wiley, 1999
[4] Zangwill, Andrew (2013). Modern Electrodynamics. Cambridge University Press.
[5] https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PL3PNJ0udOt-H30iYF8I8yohO9m11KruA8
[6] https://quantumuniversity.com/faculty/bryant-meyers/
[7] Farinas PL, Martinez Farinas PO. Effect of electromagnetic field on the action of electron in the treatment of cancer. Vida Nueva. 1951; 67(6): 141–9.
[8] Ellis WV. (1993) Pain control using high-intensity pulsed magnetic stimulation. Bioelectromagnetics. 14(6): 553-556.
[9] Hodaj H, Alibeu JP, Payen JF, et al. Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jul-Aug;8(4):801-7.
[10] Lamusuo S, Hirvonen J, Lindholm P, et al. Neurotransmitters behind pain relief with transcranial magnetic stimulation - positron emission tomography evidence for release of endogenous opioids. Eur J Pain. 2017 May 11.
[11] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Ménard-Lefaucheur I, et al. Neuropathic pain controlled for more than a year by monthly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5.
[12] Ma SM, Ni JX, Li XY. et al. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2162-70.
[13] Shehata HS, Esmail EH, Abdelalim A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 7;9:771-777.
[14] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I et al. (April 2004) Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75(4): 612–616.
[15] Picarelli H, Teixeira MJ, de Andrade DC et al. (November 2010) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I. J Pain 11(11): 1203–1210.
[16] Pujol J, Pascual-Leone A, Dolz C et al. (1998) The effect of repetitive magnetic stimulation on localized musculoskeletal pain. Neuroreport 9(8): 1745–1748.
[17] Jeon HS, Kang SY, Park JH, Lee HS. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on delayed-onset muscle soreness in biceps brachii. Phys Ther Sport. 2015 Feb;16(1):34-9
[18] Giczi J and Guseo A. Treatment of headache by pulsating electromagnetic field a preliminary report. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 74-76, 1987.
[19] Grunner O. Cerebral use of a pulsating magnetic field in neuropsychiatry patients with long-term headache. EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Verwandte Geb (1985) Dec;16(4):227-230.
[20] Lazar L and Farago A. Experiences of patients suffering from migraine-type headache treated with magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 137-140, 1987.
[21] Omar AS, Awadalla MA, ElLatif MA. Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy. Int J Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;15(5): 101-8.
[22] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[23] Aktas I, Akgun K, Cakmak B. Therapeutic effect of pulsed electromagnetic field in conservative treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(8): 1234– 1239.
[24] Leippold T, Strebel RT, Huwyler M et al. Sacral magnetic stimulation in non-inflammatory chronic pelvic pain syndrome. BJU Int. 2005;95: 838–41.
[25] Shafford HL, Hellyer PW, Crump KT et al. Use of a pulsed electromagnetic field for treatment of postoperative pain in dogs: A pilot study. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2002;29(1): 43–48.
[26] Tesic D, Djuric M, Pekaric-Nadj N et al. PEMF aided pain reduction in stomatology. 21st Annual Meeting of Bioelectromagnetics Society, Long Beach, CA, June 1999. Abstract P-141: 157.
[27] Lin ML, Lin MH, Fen JJ et al. (2010) A comparison between pulsed radiofrequency and electro-acupuncture for relieving pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Acupunct Electrother Res 35(3–4): 133–146
[28] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[29] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[30] Stewart DJ, Stewart JE. (1989) The destabilization of an abnormal physiological balanced situation, chronic musculoskeletal pain, utilizing magnetic biological device. Acta Med Hung 46(4): 323–337.
[31] Van Zundert J, Patijn J, Kessels A, et al. Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial. Pain 2007; 127(1–2): 173–82.
[32] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for migraine and other headaches: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther 18(3):101-109, 2001.
[33] Sandyk R. The influence of the pineal gland on migraine and cluster headaches and effects of treatment with picoTesla magnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov-Dec;67(1-4):145-71, 1992.
[34] Thomas AW, Prato FS. Magnetic field based pain therapeutics and diagnostics. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 24th Annual Meeting, Quebec City, PQ, Canada, June, 2002
[35] Thuile C, Walzl M. (2002) Evaluation of electromagnetic fields in the treatment of pain in patients with lumbar radiculopathy or the whiplash syndrome. Neuro Rehabilitation.17: 63-7.
[36] Ay S, Evcik D. (April 2009) The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 29(6): 663–666.
[37] Fleming JL, Persinger MA, Koren SA. (1994) Magnetic pulses elevate nociceptive thresholds: Comparisons with opiate receptor compounds in normal and seizure-induced brain-damaged rats. Electro Magnetobiol. 13(1): 67–75.
[38] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics
[39] Foley-Nolan D, Moore K, Codd M et al. (1992) Low energy high frequency pulsed electromagnetic therapy for acute whiplash injuries. A double blind randomized controlled study. Scand J Rehabil Med 24(1): 51–59.
[40] Forestier R, Françon A, Saint-Arromand F et al. (April 2007a) Are SPA therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy effective for chronic neck pain? Randomised clinical trial. First part: Clinical evaluation. Ann Readapt Med Phys 50(3): 140–147.
[41] Thomas AW, Graham K, Prato FS et al. (Winter 2007) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Res Manage 12(4): 249–258.
[42] Hedén P, Pilla AA. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on postoperative pain: A double-blind randomized pilot study in breast augmentation patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(4): 660–66.
[43] Jorgensen WA, Frome BM, Wallach C. Electrochemical therapy of pelvic pain: Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) on tissue trauma. Eur J Surg. 1994;160(574 Suppl): 83–86.
[44] Reed MW, Bickerstaff DR, Hayne CR, Wyman A, Davies J. Pain relief after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Ineffectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic energy. Br J Clin Pract. 1987;41(6): 782–84.
[45] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Zmudzinski J. The therapeutical effect of variable magnetic field in patients with multiple sclerosis (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 39, 1993.
[46] Maestú C, Blanco M, Nevado A, et al. Reduction of pain thresholds in fibromyalgia after very low-intensity magnetic stimulation: a double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain Res Manag. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):e101-6.
[47] Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, et al. (2006) Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Res Manag. Summer; 11(2): 85–90.
[48] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu F, et al. (2009) Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain. Oct;25(8): 722-8.
[49] Neumüller J, Tohidast-Akrad M, Partsch G, et al. Changes in phagocytosis and the percentage of lymphocyte subsets during therapy with pulsed magnetic fields (PMF). Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1), 29-45 (1989).
[50] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[51] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosine receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol. 2002 May;136(1):57-66.
[52] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Ravani A, et al. Adenosine receptors as a biological pathway for the anti-inflammatory and beneficial effects of low frequency low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields. Mediators Inflamm (2017) 2017:2740963.
[53] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Targa M, et al. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field exposure on adenosine receptors in rat brain. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 May;33(4):279-87.
[54] Vianale G, Reale M, Amerio P, et al. Extremely low frequency electro- magnetic field enhances human keratinocyte cell growth and decreases proinflammatory chemokine production. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1189-96
[55] Vincenzi F, Targa M, Corciulo C, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields increased the anti-inflammatory effect of A2A and A3 adenosine receptors in human T/C-28a2 chondrocytes and hFOB 1.19 osteoblasts. PLoS One. 2013 May 31;8(5):e65561.
[56] Iashchenko LV, Chistiakov IV, Gakh LM, et al. Low-frequency magnetic fields in the combined therapy of inflammatory lung diseases. Probl Tuberk. 1988; 3: 53–6.
[57] Nindl G, Johnson MT, Balcavage WX. Low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on lymphocytes: Potential for treatment of inflammatory diseases. In: Ayrapetyan SN, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. Marcel Dekker, New York, 369–89, 2004.
[58] Cheing GL, Wan JW, Kai Lo S. (November 2005) Ice and pulsed electromagnetic field to reduce pain and swelling after distal radius fractures. J Rehabil Med 37(6): 372–377.
[59] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[60] Huegel J, Chan PYW, Weiss SN, et al.. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy alters early healing in a rat model of rotator cuff injury and repair: Potential mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct 17.
[61] Vannoni D, Albanese A, Battisti E, et al. In vitro exposure of human osteoarthritic chondrocytes to ELF fields and new therapeutic application of musically modulated electromagnetic fields: biological evidence. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2012 Jan-Mar;26(1):39-49.
[62] Veronesi F, Torricelli P, Giavaresi G, et al. In vivo effect of two different pulsed electromagnetic field frequencies on osteoarthritis. Orthop Res. 2014 May;32(5):677-85.
[63] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[64] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[65] Nelson FR, Zvirbulis R, Pilla AA. Non-invasive electromagnetic field therapy produces rapid and substantial pain reduction in early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blind pilot study. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(8): 2169–73.
[66] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics 13(4):445–451.
[67] Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(3): 190–96.
[68] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu BF. (February 2006) The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of cervical osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 26(4): 320–324.
[69] Rehacek, J.; Straub, J.; Benova, H. The effect of magnetic fields on coxarthroses. Fysiatr Revmatol Vestn 60(2):66-68, 1982.
[70] Fu YC, Lin CC, Chang JK, et al. A novel single pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and bone repair. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e91581.
[71] Capanna R, Donati D, Masetti C, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection. A double blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Sep;(306):213-21.
[72] Ehnert S, Schröter S, Aspera-Werz RH, et al. Translational Insights into Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (ELF-PEMFs) for Bone Regeneration after Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery. J Clin Med. 2019 Nov 20;8(12):2028.
[73]Fitzsimmons RJ, Baylink DJ. Growth factors and electromagnetic fields in bone. Clin Plast Surg 1994 Jul;21(3):401-6.
[74] Hambly MF and Mooney V. Effect of smoking and pulsed electromagnetic fields on intradiscal pH in rabbits. Spine 17(6S):S83-S85, 1992.
[75] Mishima S. The effect of long-term pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation on experimental osteoporosis of rats. J UOEH 1988 Mar 1;10(1):31-45
[76] Rubin CT, McLeod KJ, Lanyon LE. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989 Mar;71(3):411-7.
[77] Poh PSP, Seeliger C, Unger M, et al. Osteogenic Effect and Cell Signaling Activation of Extremely Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields in Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2018 Jul 12;2018
[78] Garland DE, Adkins RH, Matsuno NN, et al. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteoporosis at the knee in individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 1999 Winter;22(4):239-45
[79] Liu HF, Yang L, He HC, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields on postmenopausal osteoporosis in Southwest China: a randomized, active-controlled clinical trial. Bioelectromagnetics. 2013 May;34(4):323-32.
[80] Montagnani AM. Effects of pulsed magnetic fields in the therapy of osteoporosis induced by ovariectomy in the rat. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper 1993 Jul-Aug;69(7-8):469-75.
[81] Cho H, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Neural stimulation on human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells by extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Biotechnol Prog. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):1329-35.
[82] Detlavs I, Karklinsch E, Murniece M, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields in treatment patients with diseases of nervous system (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 4th International Congress, 19-21 November, Zagreb, Croatia, 1998.
[83] Di Loreto S, Falone S, Caracciolo V, et al. Fifty hertz extremely low-frequency magnetic field exposure elicits redox and trophic response in rat-cortical neurons. J Cell Physiol. 2009 May;219(2):334-43.
[84] Hei WH, Byun SH, Kim JS, et al. Effects of electromagnetic field (PEMF) exposure at different frequency and duration on the peripheral nerve regeneration: in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Neurosci. 2016 Aug;126(8):739-48.
[85] Hei WH, Kim S, Park JC, et al. Schwann-like cells differentiated from human dental pulp stem cells combined with a pulsed electromagnetic field can improve peripheral nerve regeneration. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr; 37(3): 163–174.
[86] Jung I, Kim H, Noh R, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic fields on NGF induced neuronal differentiation of PC12 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 35:459–469, 2014.
[87] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Adamek, M, et al. The variable magnetic fields in the complex treatment of neurological diseases (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), 3rd International Congress, 29 February-3 March, Nancy, France, 1996.
[88] Goodwin T. Physiological and molecular genetic effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields on human neuronal cells. NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States. NASA/TP-2003-212054.
[89] Li Y, Yan X, Liu J, Let al. Pulsed electromagnetic field enhances brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression through L-type voltage-gated calcium channel- and Erk-dependent signaling pathways in neonatal rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. Neurochem Int. 2014 Sep;75:96-104.
[90] Longo FM, Yang T, et al. Electromagnetic fields influence NGF activity and levels following sciatic nerve transection. J Neurosci Res 55(2):230-237, 1999.
[91] Lagroye I, Bersani F, Billaudel B, et al. Effects of ELF- and RF-EMF on the apoptotic process. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 13-8, p. 134, 2003.
[92] Li Y, Zhao L, Xing X, et al. Effects of different frequency electromagnetic fields on the differentiation of midbrain neural stem cells. Space Med Med Eng (Beijing). 2002 Oct;15(5):374-6.
[93] Nikolova L, Popov A, Klouchek E. Effect of interference current and low-frequency magnetic field on tissue regeneration. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult(3):19-23, 1984.
[94] Park JE, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Electromagnetic fields induce neural differentiation of human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells via ROS mediated EGFR activation. Neurochem Int. 2013 Mar;62(4):418-24.
[95] Wu H, Ren K, Zhao W, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on proliferation and differentiation of cultured mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2005;25(2):185-7.
[96] Zhang X, Zhang J, Qu X, et al. Effects of different extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on osteoblasts. Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(3):167-77.
[97] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54.
[98] Fan W, Qian F, Ma Q, et al. 50 Hz electromagnetic field exposure promotes proliferation and cytokine production of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 May 15;8(5):7394-404.
[99] Ascherl R, Blumel G, Lechner F, et al. On the treatment of loosening of endoprostheses by means of pulsing electromagnetic fields. Bioelectricity Bioenerg 14:161–167, 1985.
[100] Konrad K, Sevcic K, Folde K, et al. 1996. Therapy with pulsed electromagnetic fields in aseptic loosening of total hip prostheses. A prospective study. Clin Rheumatol 15:325–328.
[101] Rispoli FP, Corolla FM, Mussner R. 1988. The use of low frequency pulsing electromagnetic fields in patients with painful hip prostheses. J Bioelectricity 7:181–187.
[102] Mayer-Wagner S, Passberger A, Sievers B, et al. Effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields on the chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011 May;32(4):283-90.
[103] Chen Y, Hong L, Zeng Y, et al. Power frequency magnetic fields induced reactive oxygen species-related autophagy in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014 Dec;57:108-14.
[104] Randelli P, Menon A, Ragone V, et al. Effects of the pulsed electromagnetic field PST® on human tendon stem cells: a controlled laboratory study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Aug 18;16:293.
[105]Benazzo F, Zanon G, Pederzini L et al. Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: Prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(6): 595–601.
[106] Rodemann HP, Wecke P, Jaeschke M. Low-frequency electromagnetic fields induce premature terminal differentiation of in-vitro cultured human skin and lung fibroblasts. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 27(3):269- 280, 1992.
[107] Lee HM, Kwon UH, Kim H, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates cellular proliferation in human into vertebral disc cells. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:954–9.
[108] Mally J and Stone TW. Therapeutic and “dose-dependent” effect of repetitive microelectroshock induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease. J Neurosci Res 57(6):935-940, 1999.
[109] Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Sole J, Brasil-Neto JP, et al. Akinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Ii. Effects of subthreshold repetitive transcranial motor cortex stimulation. Neurology 44(5):892-898, 1994.
[110] Popa T, Russo M, Vidailhet M, et al. Cerebellar rTMS stimulation may induce prolonged clinical benefits in essential tremor, and subjacent changes in functional connectivity: an open label trial. Brain Stimul. 2013 Mar;6(2):175-9.
[111] Strafella AP, Paus T, Barrett J, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human prefrontal cortex induces dopamine release in the caudate nucleus. J Neurosci 21(15):RC157, 2001.
[112] Jadidi M, Biat SM, Sameni HR, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells that located in the electromagnetic fields improves rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2016 Jul;19(7):741-8.
[113] Sandyk R. Reversal of cognitive impairment in an elderly parkinsonian patient by transcranial application of picoTesla electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Sep;91(1-2):57-68, 1997.
[114] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves the response to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Oct;91(3-4):189-97, 1997.
[115] Sandyk R. Freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease is improved by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Mar;85(1-2):111-24, 1996.
[116] Sandyk R. Speech impairment in Parkinson’s disease is improved by transcranial application of electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov;92(1-2):63-72, 1997.
[117] Sandyk R. Reversal of a body image disorder (macrosomatognosia) in Parkinson’s disease by treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Feb;93(1-2):43-54, 1998.
[118] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching induced by transcranial application of AC pulsed electromagnetic fields in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Mar;97(1-2):139-45, 1999
[119] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves olfactory function in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Apr;97(3-4):225-33, 1999.
[120] Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E, et al. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: A randomized trial. Neurology. 2012 Jan 24;78(4):256-64.
[121] Zhao N, Zhang J, Qiu M, et al. Scalp acupuncture plus low-frequency rTMS promotes repair of brain white matter tracts in stroke patients: A DTI study. J Integr Neurosci. 2018; 17(1): 61–9.
[122] Pawluk W, Dennis R, Tommerdahl M. Tracking the effects of pulsed electro-magnetic field (PEMF) on individuals with a history of traumatic brain injury with the Brain Gauge. Cortical Metrics Magazine – Vol. 1, pages 1-4. 2017. https://www.corticalmetrics.com/publications.
[123] Grant G, Cadossi R, Steinberg G. Protection against focal cerebral ischemia following exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics. 1994;15(3):205-16.
[124] Cichoń N, Bijak M, Czarny P, Miller E, Synowiec E, Sliwinski T, Saluk-Bijak J. Increase in Blood Levels of Growth Factors Involved in the Neuroplasticity Process by Using an Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field in Post-stroke Patients. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 Sep 26;10:294.
[125] Lyskov EB, Juutilainen J, Jousmaki V, et al. Effects of 45 Hz magnetic fields on the functional state of the human brain. Bioelectromagnetics (1993)14: 87–95.
[126] Centonze D, Koch G, Versace V, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex ameliorates spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2007 Mar 27;68(13):1045-50.
[127] Koch G, Rossi S, Prosperetti C, et al. Improvement of hand dexterity following motor cortex rTMS in multiple sclerosis patients with cerebellar impairment. Mult Scler. 2008 Aug;14(7):995-8.
[128] Nielsen JF, Sinkjaer T and Jakobsen J. Treatment of spasticity with repetitive magnetic stimulation; a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Mult Scler 1996; 2: 227–232.
[129] Brola W, Wegrzyn W, Czernicki J. Effect of variable magnetic field on motor impairment and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Wiad Lek. 2002;55(3-4):136-43.
[130] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field therapy of multiple sclerosis by the Gyuling–Bordacs device: Double-blind, cross-over and open studies. J Bioelectr 1987; 6: 23–25.
[131] Mix E, Henssen HL, Lehmitz R, et al. Pulsing electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and migraine. Effect on cell volume and phagocytic activity of blood cells and clinical results (meeting abstract). J Bioelectr 9(2):242 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, 1990.
[132] Terlaki, G.; Gyorgy, B.; Payer, A. Clinical experiences by magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 175-179, 1987.
[133] Mostert S and Kesselring J. Effect of pulsed magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients withmultiple sclerosis – a randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 302–305.
[134] Piatkowski J, Kern S and Ziemssen T. Effect of BEMER magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized double – blind controlled trial. J [135] [434] Altern Complement Med 2009; 15: 507–511.Sandyk R and Dann LC. Weak electromagnetic fields attenuate tremor in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. 79 (3-4): 199-212, 1994.
[136] Sandyk, R. Premenstrual exacerbation of symptoms in multiple sclerosis is attenuated by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. 83 (3-4): 187-198, 1995.
[137] Sandyk R. Treatment with weak electromagnetic fields improves fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis. IntJ Neurosci. Feb;84: 177–186, 1996.
[138] Sandyk R. Application of weak electromagnetic fields facilitates sensory–motor integration in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:101 – 110, 1996.
[139] Sandyk R. Weak electromagnetic fields potentiate the effects of 4-aminopyridine in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:125 – 129, 1996.
[140] Sandyk, R. Immediate recovery of cognitive functions and resolution of fatigue by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci Aug;90(1-2):59-74, 1997.
[141] Sandyk R. Resolution of sleep paralysis by weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):145-57, 1997.
[142] Sandyk R. Treatment with electromagnetic fields reverses the long-term clinical course of a patient with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):177-85, 1997.
[143] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching--a behavioral syndrome associated with transcranial application of electromagnetic fields in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):107-13, 1998.
[144] Sandyk R. Serotonergic neuronal atrophy with synaptic inactivation, not axonal degeneration, are the main hallmarks of multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):133-40, 1998.
[145] Akan Z, Aksu B, Tulunay A. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields affect the immune response of monocyte-derived macrophages to pathogens. Bioelectromagnetics 31:603–612, 2010.
[146] Bayir E, Bilgi E, Şendemir-Ürkmez A, et al. The effects of different intensities, frequencies and exposure times of extremely low-frequency electromagneticfields on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Mar;34(1):14-8.
[147] Cellini L, Grande R, Di Campli E, et al. Bacterial response to the exposure of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 29:302-311 (2008).
[148] Nakasono S, Ikehata M, Koana T, et al. A 50 Hz, 14 mT magnetic field is not mutagenic or co-mutagenic in bacterial mutation assays. Mutat Res 471(1-2):127-134, 2000.
[149] Pica F, Serafino A, Divizia M, et al. Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) on Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpes virus in BCBL-1 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 Apr;27(3):226-32.
[150] Strasak L, Vetterl V, Smarda J. Effects of low-frequency magnetic fields on bacteria escherichia coli. Bioelectrochemistry 55(1-2):161-164, 2002.
[151] Rosado MM, Simkó M, Mattsson M-O, et al. (2018) Immune-Modulating Perspectives for Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in Innate Immunity. Front. Public Health 6:85
[152] Budak A, Zyss T, Bogusz B, et al Effect of low frequency alternating magnetic field on the growth in vitro of some pathogenic skin dermatophytes. Alpe Adria Microbiol J 7(3):191-196, 1998.
[153] Golbach LA, Scheer MH, Cuppen JJ, et al. Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Enhances Extracellular Trap Formation by Human Neutrophils through the NADPH Pathway. J Innate Immun. 2015;7(5):459-65.
[154] Mittenzwey R, Sussmuth R, Mei W. Effects of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on bacteria -- the question of a co-stressing factor. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 40(1):21-27, 1996.
[155] Winters WD, Brune JL, Darnell B. Virus suppressor factors induced in cultured cells by exposure in vitro to 60 Hz AC magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 8th Annual Meeting, 1-5 June 1986, Madison, WI, p. 31, 1986.
[156] Zhang J, Xu C, Wan Y, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic field on production of mannatide by α-hemolytic Streptococcus. Bioelectromagnetics. 37:331–337, 2016.
[157] Trial. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 1–26. Effect of Pulse Magnetic Field Stimulus on Blood Flow using Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. Lee Hyun Sook. J Korean Magnetics Society, October 2011, 21 (5), 180-184.
[158] Pastore A, Curr SB, Spinelli M. Interpretation of low-frequency pulsating magnetic field effects on patients affected by peripheral arteriopathy. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 14(1-3):207-213 Presented at the first international A.B.A.EM. Meeting, Venice, February 23-25, 1984, 1985.
[159] Guseo A. Physiological effects of pulsing electromagnetic field. In First Congress of European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), Brussels, Belgium, January 1992, s.31.
[160] Li F, Yuan Y, Guo Y, et al. Pulsed magnetic field accelerate proliferation and migration of cardiac microvascular endothelial cells.Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Jan;36(1):1-9.
[161] Di Carlo AL, Farrell, JM, Litovitz TA. Myocardial protection conferred by electromagnetic fields. Circulation 99(6):813-816, 1999.
[162] Scherlag BJ, Yamanashi WS, Hou Y, et al. Magnetism and cardiac arrhythmias. Cardiol Rev. 2004 Mar-Apr;12(2):85-96.
[163] Iorio R, Monache SD, Bennato F, et al.Involvement of mitochondrial activity in mediating ELF-EMF stimulatory effect on human sperm motility. Bioelectromagnetics 32:15–27, 2011.
[164] De Loecker W, Cheng N, Delport PH. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on membrane transport. In Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine. Ed’s: O’Connor ME, Bentall, RHC, Monahan, JC. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 45–59.
[165] M. Black, L. Soo, V. Papstein, Effects of low frequency magnetic fields on Na,K-ATPase activity, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Volume 38, Issue 2,1995, Pages 267-273,
[166] Zhang S, Clark M, Liu X, et al. The Effects of Bio-inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies. Emerging Science Journal 2019 Dec;3(6):369-381.
[167] Amirifalah Z, Firoozabadi SM, Shafiei SA. Local exposure of brain central areas to a pulsed ELF magnetic field for a purposeful change in EEG. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2013 Jan;44(1):44-52.
[168] Baker-Price LA, Persinger MA. Weak, but complex pulsed magnetic fields may reduce depression following traumatic brain injury. Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Oct;83(2):491-8.
[169] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Prato FS. A comparison of the effects of a 100 ut specific pulsed magnetic field and diazepam on anxiety-related behaviors in male CF1 mice. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 21st Annual Meeting, 20-24 June, Long Beach, CA, Abstract No. P-91, p. 129-130, 1999.
[170] Kalkan MT, Korpinar MA, Seker S, et al. The effect of the 50 Hz frequency sinusoidal magnetic field on the stress-related behavior of rats. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Biomedical Engineering Days, 20-22 May, Istanbul, Turkey, p.78-81, 1998.
[171] Semenova TP, Medvinskaia NI, Bliskovka GI, et al. Influence of electromagnetic fields on the emotional behavior of rats. Radiats Biol Radioecol 40(6):693-695, 2000.
[172] Fischer G and Kokoschinegg PJ. The treatment of sleep disturbances and meteorosensitivity by pulsed magnetic fields of low intensity. Bioelectr 9(2):243 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Hungary, 1990.
[173] Pasche B. Low energy emission therapy (leet) for the treatment of insomnia and anxiety. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. P-151, p. 240-241, 2000.
[174] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for insomnia: a double-blind, placebo- controlled study. Adv Ther Jul-Aug; 18(4):174-180, 2001.
[175] Persinger MA, Hoang V, Baker-Price L. Entrainment of stage 2 sleep spindles by weak, transcerebral magnetic stimulationin an “epileptic” woman. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009; 28(4):374-82.
[176] Tworoger SS, Davis S, Emerson SS, et al. Effect of a nighttime magnetic field exposure on sleep patterns in young women. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 1;160(3):224-9.
[177] Zhang X, Zhang H, Zheng C, et al. Extremely low frequency (ELF) pulsed-gradient magnetic fields inhibit malignant tumour growth at different biological levels. Cell Biol Int. 2002;26(7):599- 603.
[178] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, et al. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9).
[179] Kovalchuk VI, Ahtirskii VI, Dubovoi LV. Use of weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields in treatment of oncological diseases. Fizicheskaia Meditzina 4(1-2):93-95. Abstracts of All-Russian Conference “Use of Low-Level Laser Radiation and Magnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine,” Obninsk, Russia, 21-23 June 1994.
[180] Lubennikov VA, Lazarev AF, Golubtsov VT. First experience in using a whole-body magnetic field exposure in treating cancer patients. Vopr Onkol 41(2):140-141, 1995.
[181] Milevskaya TG, Shitikov BD, Prohorova VI, et al. Eddy magnetic field therapy as a part of combined therapy for breast cancer. Mammologia (2):51-55, 1997.
[182] Ronchetto F, Barone D, Cintorino M, et al. Static and extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields to treat cancer: a pilot study on patients with advanced neoplasm to assess safety and acute toxicity. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27 June, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 14-1, p. 137, 2003.
[183] Omote Y, Hosokawa M, Komatsumoto M, et al. Treatment of experimental tumors with a combination of a pulsing magnetic field and an antitumor drug. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1990 Sep;81(9):956- 61.
[184] Yuan LQ, Wang C, Zhu K, et al. The antitumor effect of static and extremely low frequency magnetic fields against nephroblastoma and neuroblastoma. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Jul;39(5):375-385.
[185] Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, et al.Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.
[186] Goritskaya I, Vinokurov V, Uritsky V, et al. The treatment effect of ELF magnetic fields on patients with ovarian tumours. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. P-16A, p. 99, 1995.
[187] Zimmerman J, Pennison M, Brezovich I, et al. Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. British Journal of Cancer 2012, 106:307 – 313.
[188] Barbault A, Costa FP, Bottger B, et al. Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 14;28(1):51.
[189] Evangelou A, Toliopoulos I, Giotis C, Metsios A, Verginadis I, Simos Y, Havelas K, Hadziaivazis G, Karkabounas S. Functionality of natural killer cells from end-stage cancer patients exposed to coherent electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Mar;30(1):46-56.
[190] Bier RR and Estersohn HS. A new treatment for charcot joint in the diabetic foot. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 77(2):63-69, 1987.
[191] Cieslar G, Sieron A, Radelli J. (1995) The estimation of therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic neuropathy including vibratory sensibility. Balneol Pol 37(1): 23-27.
[192] Laitl-Kobierska A, Cieslar G, Sieron A, et al. Influence of alternating extremely low frequency elf magnetic field on structure and function of pancreas in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 23(1):49-58, 2002.
[193] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Jochan K, et al. The therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Balneol Pol 37(2):44-47, 1995.
[194] Webb CY, Lo SSL, Evans JH. 2003. Prevention of diabetic foot using low frequency magnetotherapy. The Diabetic Foot 6:138–150.
[195] Cañedo-Dorantes L, Soenksen LR, García-Sánchez C, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of systemic extremely low frequency magnetic fields used in the healing of diabetic foot ulcers—phase II data. Arch Med Res. 2015 Aug;46(6):470-8.
[196] Elrashid, Nesrein & Hamada, Hamada & Abdelmoety, Alshaimaa & Soliman, Gaber & Abbas, Rami. (2019). Additional effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields to laser therapy on management of diabetic foot ulcer: A single blind randomized controlled trial. Bioscience Research. 15. 3322-3328.
[197] Tsisel’skiĭ IuV. The effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on ocular hydrodynamics in open-angle glaucoma. Oftalmol Zh. 1990;(2):89-92.
[198] Skrinnik AV and Kovalchuk AS. The impulse electromagnetic field in the treatment of dystrophic lesions of the retina. Oftalmol Zh(8):459-462, 1989.
[199] Verzin AA. Action of gentamycin against a background of magnetotherapy of the anterior chamber in a traumatic infected erosion of the cornea. Antibiotiki. 1982 Oct;27(10):774-5.
[200] Fujishiro T, Enomoto H, Ugawa Y, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2000 Oct;164(4):1277-9.
[201] Fujishiro T, Takahashi S, Enomoto H, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of urinary frequency and urge incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):1036-9.
[202] Suzuki T, Yasuda K, Yamanishi T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled evaluation of the effect of functional continuous magnetic stimulation in patients with urgency incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(6):767-72.
[203] Yamanishi T, Homma Y, Nishizawa O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled study on the efficacy of magnetic stimulation for women with urgency urinary incontinence. Int J Urol. Apr;21(4):395-400, 2014.
[204] Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Sakakibara R, et al. Induction of urethral closure and inhibition of bladder contraction by continuous magnetic stimulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 18(5):505-10, 1999.
[205] Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Karim Khan NA, Yuen KH. Pulsed Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Followup Results. J Urol. 2017 May;197(5):1302-1308.
[206] But I and Varda NM. Functional magnetic stimulation: a new method for the treatment of girls with primary nocturnal enuresis? J Pediatr Urol. 2006 Oct;2(5):415-8.
[207] But I, Faganelj M, Sostaric A. Functional magnetic stimulation for mixed urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1644-6.
[208] But I. Conservative treatment of female urinary incontinence with functional magnetic stimulation. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):558-61.
[209] But I. Functional magnetic stimulation for treatment of urinary incontinence – presentation of Pulsegen device. #433. ICS 2002 Annual Conference, Heidelberg, 28th - 30th August 2002. Meeting abstract.
[210] Nindl G, Spandau DF, Vesper DN, et al. Therapeutic potential of elf magnetic fields in inflammatory skin diseases. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. 13-1, p. 73-74, 2000.
[211] Yurina NA, Radostina AI, Savin BM, et al. Mast cells as a test of body state during electromagnetic exposure of varying intensity. Aviakosm Ekolog Med 31(2):43-47, 1997.
[212] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field effects small intestine motility. European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 33, 1993..
[213] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[214] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
Chapter 1 References
[1] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[2] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[3] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[4] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[5] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
[6] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[7] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[8] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[9] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[10] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[11] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[12] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[13] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[14] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[15] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[16] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[17] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[18] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[19] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[20] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8342182/
Chapter 2 References
[1] Galvani, Aloysio Luigi. The Effects of Artificial Electricity on Muscular Motion. Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research 88():p 2-10, October 1972.
[2] Hartshorne E. On the causes and treatment of pseudarthrosis, and especially that form of it sometimes called supernumerary joint. Am J Med, 1841;1:121-156.
[3] Lente RW. Cases of ununited fracture treated by electricity. NY State J Med. 1850;5:317-319.
[4] Geddes, L.A., 1984. A short history of the electrical stimulation of excitable tissue including electrotherapeutic applications. Physiologist 27 (1), S1–S47.
[5] Flexner, A., 1910. Medical Education in the United States and Canada: A Report to the Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching. Bulletin No. 4. The Carnegie Foundation for the Advancement of Teaching; New York.
[6] Becker, R. Stimulation of Partial Limb Regeneration in Rats. Nature 235, 109–111 (1972).
[7] Matteucci, C., 1844. Traité des phénomènes électro-physiologiques des animaux suivi d’études anatomiques
sur le système nerveux et sur l’organe électrique de la torpille par Paul Savi. Fortin, Masson et C., Paris.
[8] du Bois-Reymond, E., 1848-1884. Untersuchungen u ̈ber thierische elektricita ̈t, 2 Reimer, Berlin.
[9] Herlitzka, A., 1910. Ein Beitrag zur Physiologie der Regeneration. Wilhelm Roux Arch Entwicklungsmech
Org. 10, 126–159.
[10] Huttenlocher, A., Horwitz, A.R., 2007. Wound healing with electric potential. N Engl J Med 356,
303–304.
[11] Nguyen, D.T., Orgill, D.P., Murphy, G.F., 2009. The pathophysiologic basis for wound healing and cutaneous regeneration. In: Biomaterials for Treating Skin Loss. Woodhead Publishing (UK/Europe) & CRC Press (US), Cambridge, UK/Boca Raton, FL, pp. 25–57, Chapter 4.
[12] Zaho, M., Song, B., Pu, J., et al., 2006. Electrical signals control wound healing through phosphatidylinositol-
3OH kinase-gamma and PTEN. Nature 442, 457–460.
[13] Chaudhari SN, Kipreos ET. The Energy Maintenance Theory of Aging: Maintaining Energy Metabolism to Allow Longevity. Bioessays. 2018 Aug;40(8):e1800005
[14] Short KR, Bigelow ML, Kahl J, Singh R, Coenen-Schimke J, Raghavakaimal S, Nair KS, Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 2005, 102, 5618
[15] Nuccitelli R, Nuccitelli P, Li C, Narsing S, Pariser DM, Lui K. The electric field near human skin wounds declines with age and provides a noninvasive indicator of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 2011 Sep-Oct;19(5):645-55. https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3228273/
[16] Ud-Din S, Bayat A. Electrical Stimulation and Cutaneous Wound Healing: A Review of Clinical Evidence. Healthcare. 2014; 2(4):445-467
[17] Foulds IS and Barker AT. Human skin battery potentials and their possible role in wound healing. Br J Dermatol 109(5):515-522, 1983.
[18] Barker AT, Jaffe LF, Vanable JW., Jr. The glabrous epidermis of cavies contains a powerful battery. Am J Physiol. 1982;242:R358–R366
[19] Jaffe, L. F. and Nuccitelli, R. (1974). An ultrasensitive vibrating probe for measuring extracellular currents. J. Cell Biol. 63, 614–628.
[20] Borgens, R. B., Robinson, K. R., Vanable, J. W., Jr., McGinnis, M. E., and McCaig, C. D. Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc.
[21] Illingworth, C. M. and Barker, A. T. (1980). Measurement of electrical currents emerging during the regeneration of amputated fingertips in children. Clin.Phys. Physiol. Meas. 1, 87–89.
[22] Brighton CT, Hozack WJ, Brager MD, Windsor RE, Pollack SR, Vreslovic EJ, Kotwick JE. Fracture healing in the rabbit fibula when subjected to various capacitively coupled electrical fields. J Orthop Res. 1985; 3(3): 331–40.
[23] Majno, G., 1975. The Healing Hand. Man and Wound in the Ancient World. Harvard University Press,
Cambridge, MA.
[24] Levin, Michael; Johnson, Randy L; Sterna, Claudio D; Kuehn, Michael; Tabin, Cliff (September 1995). "A molecular pathway determining left-right asymmetry in chick embryogenesis". Cell. 82 (5): 803–814.
[25] Levin, Michael (1 January 2005). "Left–right asymmetry in embryonic development: a comprehensive review". Mechanisms of Development. 122 (1): 3–25.
[26] Levin, Michael; Thorlin, Thorleif; Robinson, Kenneth R.; Nogi, Taisaku; Mercola, Mark (October 2002). "Asymmetries in H+/K+-ATPase and Cell Membrane Potentials Comprise a Very Early Step in Left-Right Patterning". Cell. 111 (1): 77–89.
[27] Sundelacruz, Sarah; Levin, Michael; Kaplan, David L. (September 2009). "Role of Membrane Potential in the Regulation of Cell Proliferation and Differentiation". Stem Cell Reviews and Reports. 5 (3): 231–246.
[28] Blackiston, Douglas J.; McLaughlin, Kelly A.; Levin, Michael (November 2009). "Bioelectric controls of cell proliferation: Ion channels, membrane voltage and the cell cycle". Cell Cycle. 8 (21): 3527–3536.
[29] Levin, Michael (June 2007). "Large-scale biophysics: ion flows and regeneration". Trends in Cell Biology. 17 (6): 261–270.
[30] Adams, Dany S.; Masi, Alessio; Levin, Michael (1 April 2007). "H+ pump-dependent changes in membrane voltage are an early mechanism necessary and sufficient to induce Xenopus tail regeneration" (PDF). Development. 134 (7): 1323–1335.
[31] Adams, Dany S.; Robinson, Kenneth R.; Fukumoto, Takahiro; Yuan, Shipeng; Albertson, R. Craig; Yelick, Pamela; Kuo, Lindsay; McSweeney, Megan; Levin, Michael (1 May 2006). "Early, H+-V-ATPase-dependent proton flux is necessary for consistent left-right patterning of non-mammalian vertebrates" (PDF). Development. 133 (9): 1657–1671.
[32] Fukumoto, Takahiro; Kema, Ido P.; Levin, Michael (May 2005). "Serotonin Signaling Is a Very Early Step in Patterning of the Left-Right Axis in Chick and Frog Embryos". Current Biology. 15 (9): 794–803. Bibcode:2005CBio...15..794F.
[33] Levin, Michael; Pagan, Sylvia; Roberts, Drucilla J.; Cooke, Jonathan; Kuehn, Michael R.; Tabin, Clifford J. (September 1997). "Left/Right Patterning Signals and the Independent Regulation of Different Aspects ofSitusin the Chick Embryo". Developmental Biology. 189 (1): 57–67.
[34] Levin, Michael (December 2014). "Molecular bioelectricity: how endogenous voltage potentials control cell behavior and instruct pattern regulation in vivo". Molecular Biology of the Cell. 25 (24): 3835–3850.
[35] Levin, Michael (2019). "The Computational Boundary of a "Self": Developmental Bioelectricity Drives Multicellularity and Scale-Free Cognition". Frontiers in Psychology. 10: 2688.
[36] Borgens, R. B. (1982). What is the role of naturally produced electric current in vertebrate regeneration and healing?. Int. Rev. Cytol. 76, 245–298.
[37] Borgens, R. B., Robinson, K. R., Vanable, J. W., Jr., McGinnis, M. E., and McCaig, C. D. Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc.
[38] Cho, M. R. (2002). A review of electrocoupling mechanisms mediating facilitated wound healing. IEEE Transactions on Plasma Science 30, 1504–1515.
[39] Cho, M. R., Marler, J. P., Thatte, H. S., and Golan, D.E. (2002). Control of calcium entry in human fibroblasts by frequency-dependent electrical stimulation. Front Biosci. a1–a8.
[40] Jaffe, L. F. and Vanable, J. W. (1984). Electric fields and wound healing. Clin. Dermatol. 2, 34–44.
[41] McCaig, C. D. and Zhao, M. (1997). Physiological electrical fields modify cell behaviour. BioEssays 19, 819–826.
[42] McCaig, C. D., Rajnicek, A. M., Song, B., and Zhao, M. (2002). Has electrical growth cone guidance found its potential? Trends Neurosci. 25, 354–359.
[43] Nuccitelli, R. (1984). The involvement of transcellular ion currents and electric fields in pattern formation, in Pattern Formation: A Primer in Developmental Biology, edited by G. M. Malacinski, and S. V. Bryant. New York, London: MacMillan Publishing Co., Collier MacMillan Publishers, pp. 23–46.
[44] Nuccitelli, R. (1988). Physiological electric fields can influence cell motility, growth, and polarity. Adv. Cell Biol. 2, 213–233
[45] Robinson, K. R. (1985). The responses of cells to electrical fields: A review. J. Cell Biol. 101, 2023–2027.
[46] Vanable, J. W. (1989). Integumentary potentials and wound healing, in Electric Fields in Vertebrate Repair, edited by R. B. Borgens, K. R. Robinson, J. W. Vanable, Jr. M. E. McGinnis. New York: Alan R. Liss, Inc, pp. 171–224.
[47] Nuccitelli, Richard. (2003). A Role for Endogenous Electric Fields in Wound Healing. Current topics in developmental biology. 58. 1-26. 10.1016/S0070-2153(03)58001-2.
[48] Zhao, M., Forrester, J.V., McCaig, C.D., 1999. A small, physiological electric field orients cell division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 4942–4946.
[49] Wang, E.T., Zhao, M., 2010. 2010 Regulation of tissue repair and regeneration by electric fields. Chin. J. Traumatol. 13 (1), 55–61.
[50] H. Richard Leuchtag. "Voltage-Sensitive Ion Channels: Biophysics of Molecular Excitability". Retrieved 2012-08-01.
[51] Zhao, M., Forrester, J.V., McCaig, C.D., 1999. A small, physiological electric field orients cell division. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. U. S. A. 96, 4942–4946.
[52] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[53] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[54] Brighton CT, Hozack WJ, Brager MD, Windsor RE, Pollack SR, Vreslovic EJ, Kotwick JE. Fracture healing in the rabbit fibula when subjected to various capacitively coupled electrical fields. J Orthop Res. 1985;3(3):331–40.
[55] C.A. Bassett, Fundamental and practical aspects of therapeutic uses of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs), Crit. Rev. Biomed. Eng. 17 (1989) 451–529.
[56] A.A. Pilla, Low-intensity electromagnetic and mechanical modulation of bone growth and repair: are they equivalent? J. Orthop. Sci. 7 (2002) 420–428.
[57] Bassett, C.A. Biological Effects of Electric and Magnetic Fields; Carpenter, D.O., Aĭrapetíàn, S.N., Eds.; Academic Press: San Diego, CA, USA, 1994;
[58] Chiang, M., Cragoe, E. J., Jr., and Vanable, J. W. (1991). Intrinsic electric fields promote epithelialization of wounds in the newt, Notophthalmus viridescens. Dev. Biol. 146, 377–385.
[59] Sta Iglesia, D. D., Cragoe, E. J., Jr., and Vanable, J. W., Jr. (1996). Electric field strength and epithelization in the newt (Notophthalmus viridescens). J. Exp. Zool. 274, 56–62.
[60] Sta Iglesia, D. D. and Vanable, J. W., Jr. (1998). Endogenous lateral electric fields around bovine corneal lesions are necessary for and can enhance normal rates of wound healing. Wound Repair Regen. 6, 531–542.
[61] Becker RO. The bioelectric factors in amphibian-limb regeneration. J Bone Joint Surg 1961;43:643–56.
[62] Becker, R. O. (1961). "Search for Evidence of Axial Current Flow in Peripheral Nerves of Salamander". Science. 134 (3472): 101–2.
[63] Cheng, N., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[64] Kloth, L.C., McCulloch, J.M., 1996. Promotion of wound healing with electrical stimulation. Adv. Wound
Care 9 (5), 42–45.
[65] Messerli, M.A., Graham, D.M., 2011. Extracellular electrical fields direct wound healing and regeneration. Biol. Bull. 221, 79–92.
[66] Taghipour, Hamed & Frounchi, Javad & Ahmadiasl, Nasser & Shahabi, Parviz & Salekzamani, Yaghoub. (2015). Effect of contacts configuration and location on selective stimulation of cuff electrode. Bio-Medical Materials and Engineering. 25. 237-248. 10.3233/BME-151281.
[67] Bassett CAL. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. Advances in Chemistry. 1995;250:261–276
[68] Taverner, Murray & Loughnan, Terence & Soon, Chien-Wuen. (2012). Transcutaneous Application of Pulsed Radiofrequency Treatment for Shoulder Pain. Pain practice : the official journal of World Institute of Pain.
[69] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[70] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[71] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54.
[72] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[73] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[74] Bassett, C.A.L., 1995. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. In: Blank, M. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields: Biological interactions and Mechanisms. Advances in chemistry Series, vol. 250. American chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 261–275
[75] Rubin, C.T., McLeod, K.J., Lanyon, L.E., 1989. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 71 (3), 411–417.
[76] Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
[77] Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[78] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[79] Shujun Zhang et al., “The Effects of Bio-Inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies,” Emerging Science Journal 3, no. 6 (December 1, 2019): 369–81
[80] Blank M. Electric and magnetic field signal transduction in the membrane Na-K ATPase. Adv Chem 1995b; 250:339–348.“
[81] B Lednev, V. V., & Malyshev, S. L. (2001). Effects of weak combined magnetic fields on actin-activated ATPase activity of skeletalmyosin. In Abstract Collection of the Bioelectromagnetics Society Annual Meeting. St Paul, Minnesota, USA, p. 3–4.
[82] Science 12 Apr 2002: Vol. 296, Issue 5566, pp. 346-349
[83]Dertinger H. Forschungszentrum Karlsruhe, Institut für Medizintechnik u. Biophysik, March, 2002.
[84] Goodwin, Thomas & McCarthy, Maureen & Dennis, Robert. (2005). Physiological And Molecular Genetic Effects Of Time Varying Electromagnetic Fields (TVEMF) On Human Neuronal Cells. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise - MED SCI SPORT EXERCISE. 37. 10.1249/00005768-200505001-00867.
[85] Nuccitelli R. A role for endogenous electric fields in wound healing. Curr Top Dev Biol. 2003;58:1-26.
[86] Barker AT, Jaffe LF, Vanable JW., Jr. The glabrous epidermis of cavies contains a powerful battery. Am J Physiol. 1982;242:R358–R366
[87] H. Richard Leuchtag. "Voltage-Sensitive Ion Channels: Biophysics of Molecular Excitability". Retrieved 2012-08-01.
[88] George, I., Geddis, M.S., Lill, Z., Lin, H., Gomez, T., Blank, M., Oz, M.C., and Goodman, R. (2008). Myocardial function improved by electromagnetic field induction of stress protein hsp70. J Cell Physiol 216, 816–823.
[89] Singh S, Khanduja KL, Mittal PK. Influence of 50 Hz sinusoidal electromagnetic field on hepatic and pulmonary phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes in mice. Electro Magnetobiol 17 (3): 343-350, 1998.
[90] George, I., Geddis, M.S., Lill, Z., Lin, H., Gomez, T., Blank, M., Oz, M.C., and Goodman, R. (2008). Myocardial function improved by electromagnetic field induction of stress protein hsp70. J Cell Physiol 216, 816–823.
[91] Blank M, Goodman R. 2004. Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced interactions. J Cell Physiol 199: 359–363.
[92] Vianale, G., Reale, M., Amerio, P., Stefanachi, M., Di Luzio, S., and Muraro, R. (2008). Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field enhances human keratinocyte cell growth and decreases proinflammatory chemokine production. Br J Dermatol 158, 1189–1196.
[93] Vincenzi F, Targa M, Corciulo C, Gessi S, Merighi S, Setti S, Cadossi R, Goldring MB, Borea PA, Varani K. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields increased the Anti-Inflammatory Effect of A2a and A3 Adenosine receptors in Human T/C-28a2 Chondrocytes and fFOB 1.19 Osteoblasts. PLOS ONE 2013; 8(5):e65561
[94] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, Iannotta V, Cattabriga E, Spisani S, Cadossi R, Borea PA. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosine receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol. 2002;136(1):57–66.
[95] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, Iannotta V, Cattabriga E, Pancaldi C, Cadossi R, Borea PA. Alteration of A3 adenosine receptors in human neutrophils and low frequency electromagnetic fields. Biochem Pharmacol. 2003;66(10):1897–1906.
[96] Varani K, De Mattei M, Vincenzi F, Gessi S, Merighi S, Pellati A, Ongaro A, Caruso A, Cadossi R, Borea PA. Characterization of adenosine receptors in bovine chondrocytes and fibroblast-like synoviocytes exposed to low frequency low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields. Osteoarthritis Cartilage. 2008;16(3):292–304.
[97] Massari L, Benazzo F, De Mattei M, Setti S, Fini M; CRES Study Group. Effects of electrical physical stimuli on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:152-61.
[98] Pilla AA. Electromagnetic fields instantaneously modulate nitric oxide signaling in challenged biological systems. Biochem Biophys Res Commun. 2012;426:330–333.
[99] Chul-Ho Kim et al., “The Impact of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Blood Pressure and Circulating Nitric Oxide Levels: A Double Blind, Randomized Study in Subjects with Metabolic Syndrome,” Blood Pressure 29, no. 1 (February 2020): 47–54
In a trial by scientists from Minnesota and Arizona, PEMF demonstrated improvements in blood pressure and vascular funtion in hypertensive individuals.36 These scientists also conducted another trial in 2020 to study the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on blood pressure and nitric oxide levels in patients with metabolic syndrome
[100] Glenn M. Stewart et al., “Impact of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Vascular Function and Blood Pressure in Hypertensive Individuals,” Journal of Clinical Hypertension (Greenwich, Conn.) 22, no. 6 (June 2020): 1083–89, https://doi.org/10.1111/jch.13877.
[101] Kim et al., “The Impact of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Blood Pressure and Circulating Nitric Oxide Levels: A Double Blind, Randomized Study in Subjects with Metabolic Syndrome.”
[102] Kim SB, Lee NR, Park SW, et al. Electromagnetic acupuncture to enhance the effects of manual acupuncture on recovery from muscle fatigue of the quadriceps. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2014 Oct;7(5):250-7.
[103] Lee NR, Kim SB, Heo H, et al. Comparison of the Effects of Manual Acupuncture, Laser Acupuncture, and Electromagnetic Field Stimulation at Acupuncture Point BL15 on Heart Rate Variability. J Acupunct Meridian Stud. 2016 Oct;9(5):257-263.
[104] Selvamurugan N, Kwok S, Vasilov A, Jefcoat SC, Patridge NC. Effects of BMP-2 and pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) on rat primary osteoblastic cell proliferation and gene expression. J Orthop Res. 2007; 25(9): 1213-20
[105] Ibiwaye MO, Powell Ka, Grabnier MD. Bone mass is preserved in a critical-sized osteotomy by low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields as quantitated by in vivo micro-computed tomography. J Orthop Res. 2004; 2004 22(5): 1086-93.
[106] Androjna C, Waldorff EJ, Ryaby JT, Zborowski M, Midura RJ. Optimizing Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) Signals to Reduce Bone Loss Associated with Osteoporosis". Orthopedic Research Society March 2017, San Diego Calfornia.
[107] Bassett CA, Becker RO. Generation of electric potentials in bone in response to mechanical stress. Science 1962;137:1063–4.
[108] Basset CAL, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled magnetic field. Science 1974;184:575–9.
[109] Goodwin, T. Physiologic and molecular genetic effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields on human neuronal cells. Lyndon B Johnson Space Center. 2003 Sep. NASA
[110] Becker RO. The bioelectric factors in amphibian-limb regeneration. J Bone Joint Surg 1961;43:643–56.
[111] Becker RO. Augmentation of regenerative healing in man. A possible alternative to prosthetic implantation. Clin Orthop 83 (1972):255–262.
[112] Muehsam D, Lalezari P, Lekhraj R, et al. Non-thermal radio frequency and static magnetic fields increase rate of hemoglobin deoxygenation in a cell-free preparation. PLoS One. 2013 Apr 12;8(4):e61752.
[113] https://magdahavas.com/health-issues/dr-oz-on-pemf-therapy-and-pain-control/
[114] Novickij V, Grainys A, Švedienė J, et al. Microsecond pulsed magnetic field improves efficacy of antifungal agents on pathogenic microorganisms. Bioelectromagnetics 35(5): 347–353, 2014.
[115] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm, Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658,
[116] Meyers, B. PEMF, The 5th element of health. Balboa Press 2013.
Chapter 3 References
[1] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[2] Wang KW , Hladky SB . An upper limit for the effect of low frequency magnetic fields on ATP - sensitive potassium channels . Biochim Biophys Acta . 1994 ; 1195 : 218–222
[3] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[4] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[5] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[6] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[7] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
[8] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[9] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[10] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[11] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[12] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[13] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[14] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[15] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[16] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[17] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[18] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[19] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[20] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[21] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[22] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[23] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[24] Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science. 1974 May 3;184(4136):575-7.
[25] Goodwin, Thomas. (2003). Physiological and Molecular Genetic Effects of Time-Varying Electromagnetic Fields on Human Neuronal Cells
[26] Goodwin, Thomas & McCarthy, Maureen & Dennis, Robert. (2005). Physiological And Molecular Genetic Effects Of Time Varying Electromagnetic Fields (TVEMF) On Human Neuronal Cells. Medicine and Science in Sports and Exercise - MED SCI SPORT EXERCISE. 37. 10.1249/00005768-200505001-00867.
[27] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54. {20 mT did not work}
[28] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[29] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[30] Bassett, C.A.L., 1995. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. In: Blank, M. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields: Biological interactions and Mechanisms. Advances in chemistry Series, vol. 250. American chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 261–275
[31] Rubin, C.T., McLeod, K.J., Lanyon, L.E., 1989. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 71 (3), 411–417.
[32] Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
[33] Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[34] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[35] Weaver JC, Astumian RD. The response of living cells to very weak electric fields: the thermal noise limit. Science. 1990 Jan 26;247(4941):459-62
[36] IEC. Particular requirements for the safety of magnetic resonance equipment for medical diagnosis. In: Diagnostic imaging equipment, publication IEC 60601-2-33, medical electrical equipment, Part 2. International Electrotechnology Commission, International Electrotechnical Commission (IEC), 3, rue de Varembé, P.O. Box 131, CH-1211 Geneva 20, Switzerland, 1995.
[37] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part I: Overview and First Observations. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2019; 1(1)DOI
[38] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)
[39] Dennis, R.G., Dow, D. E. (2007) Excitability of skeletal muscle during development, denervation, and tissue culture. Tissue Engineering, 13:10, 2395-2404, October.
[40] Dennis, R.G., Paul E. Kosnik, Mark E. Gilbert, and John A. Faulkner. (2001) Excitability and contractility of skeletal muscle engineered from primary cultures and cell lines. Am J Physiol Cell Physiol 280: C288-C295.
[41] Dennis R.G., Kosnik P.E. (2000) Excitability and isometric contractile properties of mammalian skeletal muscle constructs engineered in vitro. In Vitro Cell. Dev. Biol. Anim. 36(5): 327-335.
[42] Kosnik P. Jr., Faulkner J.A., and Dennis R.G. (2001) Functional development of engineered skeletal muscle from adult and neonatal rats. Tissue Engineering, 7(5) 573-584.
[43] Hubbard D. Electroceutical technology: anti-inflammatory effects of 40-160 T/s inductively coupled electrical stimulation (ICES) in the acute inflammation model. 2013
Chapter 4 References
[1] Massari L, Benazzo F, De Mattei M, Setti S, Fini M; CRES Study Group. Effects of electrical physical stimuli on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:152-61.
[2] According to DIN 33402-2, all the data refers to adults between the ages of 18 and 65 in Germany. The data was taken from the “Kleine Ergonomische Datensammlung" published by the Federal Institute for Occupational Safety and Health (BAuA).
Chapter 5 References
[1] https://americanliterature.com/childrens-stories/goldilocks-and-the-three-bears
[2] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[3] Massari, L.; Benazzo, F.; Moretti, B.; Dallari, D.; Perugia, D.; Meani, E.; Cadossi, R. Electrical Stimulation of Osteogenesis: Efficacy and Technologies Compared. GIOT 2011, 6, 1–8.
[4] Data from above study [3] was partially communicated at the congress: 2nd Trauma Meeting, Milano Marittima, 15-17 October 2009 (Ravazzani P. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for bone regeneration: analysis of existing technology and distribution of the magnetic field).
[5] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. Gatekeeper Press (2021).
[6] Pawluk, W & Layne, C. Power Tools for Health. FriesenPress (2017).
[7] Pawluk, W. Sleep Problems - The PEMF Solution. Ebook
[8] Pawluk, W. Supercharge your energy healing with PEMF. Ebook
[9] Pawluk, W. Pulsed Electric Magnetic Fields (PEMF) stimulates Mitochondria to Produce ATP. Ebook
[10] Pawluk, W. Reduce the Impact of Stress on the Body with PEMFs. Ebook
[11] Pawluk, W. PEMF Therapy for Pain and inflammation Ebook.
[12] Pawluk, W. Magnetic Field Therapy for PAIN. Ebook
[13] Pawluk, W. The Potential of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) for Slowing or Reversing Heart Failure. Ebook
[14] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health to Protect Yourself Against Cancer. Ebook
[15] Pawluk, W. Clinical Use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMFs), in Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for Clinical Applications (2020). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov
[16] Pawluk, W. Clinical Dosimetry of Extremely Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields. In Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics (2017).Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov
[17] Pawluk, W. Magnetic Fields for Pain Control in Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine (pp.273-296). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov Duplicates removed
[18] Studies Highlighted on his Website https://www.drpawluk.com/pemf-studies
[19] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dOBOhuqzdBhZOAANnvT_2KCFWAdNxNc1WloU33_KRKM
[20] Thomas, A. W., K. Graham, et al. (2007). A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Res Manag 12(4): 249-58.
[21] Pawluk W., Use of a PEMF to Treat Complex TBI with Brain Gauge and Rivermead Outcome Measures, Journal of Science and Medicine, Vol 2, No. 1 (2020).
[22] Pawluk W, Turk Z, Fischer G, Kobinger W. Treatment of osteoarthritis with a new broadband PEMF signal. Presentation. 24th Annual Meeting of Bioelectromagnetics Society, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada, June 2002.
[23] Ellis WV. (1993) Pain control using high-intensity pulsed magnetic stimulation. Bioelectromagnetics. 14(6): 553-556.
[24] Hodaj H, Alibeu JP, Payen JF, et al. Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jul-Aug;8(4):801-7.
[25] Lamusuo S, Hirvonen J, Lindholm P, et al. Neurotransmitters behind pain relief with transcranial magnetic stimulation - positron emission tomography evidence for release of endogenous opioids. Eur J Pain. 2017 May 11.
[26] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Ménard-Lefaucheur I, et al. Neuropathic pain controlled for more than a year by monthly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5.
[27] Ma SM, Ni JX, Li XY. et al. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2162-70.
[28] Shehata HS, Esmail EH, Abdelalim A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 7;9:771-777.
[29] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I et al. (April 2004) Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75(4): 612–616.
[30] Picarelli H, Teixeira MJ, de Andrade DC et al. (November 2010) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I. J Pain 11(11): 1203–1210.
[31] Pujol J, Pascual-Leone A, Dolz C et al. (1998) The effect of repetitive magnetic stimulation on localized musculoskeletal pain. Neuroreport 9(8): 1745–1748.
[32] Jeon HS, Kang SY, Park JH, Lee HS. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy on delayed-onset muscle soreness in biceps brachii. Phys Ther Sport. 2015 Feb;16(1):34-9
[33] Centonze D, Petta F, Versace V, et al. Effects of motor cortex rTMS on lower urinary tract dysfunction in multiple sclerosis. Mult Scler. 2007 Mar;13(2):269-71.
[34] Fujishiro T, Enomoto H, Ugawa Y, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2000 Oct;164(4):1277-9.
[35] Fujishiro T, Takahashi S, Enomoto H, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of urinary frequency and urge incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2002 Sep;168(3):1036-9.
[36] Manganotti P, Zaina F, Vedovi E, et al. Repetitive magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: a brief report. Medicophys. 2007 Sep;43(3):339-44.
[37] Suzuki T, Yasuda K, Yamanishi T, et al. Randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled evaluation of the effect of functional continuous magnetic stimulation in patients with urgency incontinence. Neurourol Urodyn. 2007;26(6):767-72.
[38] Yamanishi T, Homma Y, Nishizawa O, et al. Multicenter, randomized, sham-controlled study on the efficacy of magnetic stimulation for women with urgency urinary incontinence. Int J Urol. Apr;21(4):395-400, 2014.
[39] Yamanishi T, Yasuda K, Sakakibara R, et al. Induction of urethral closure and inhibition of bladder contraction by continuous magnetic stimulation. Neurourol Urodyn. 18(5):505-10, 1999.
[40] Lim R, Liong ML, Leong WS, Karim Khan NA, Yuen KH. Pulsed Magnetic Stimulation for Stress Urinary Incontinence: 1-Year Followup Results. J Urol. 2017 May;197(5):1302-1308.
[41] Garcia-Toro M, Mayol A, Arnillas H, et al. Modest adjunctive benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation in medication-resistant depression. J Affect Disord 64(2-3):271-275, 2001.
[42] Keck ME, Welt T, Post A, et al. Neuroendocrine and behavioral effects of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in a psychopathological animal model are suggestive of antidepressant-like effects. Neuropsychopharmacology 24(4):337-349, 2001.
[43] Szuba MP, O’Reardon JP, Rai A, et al. Acute mood and thyroid stimulating hormone effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depression. Biol Psychiatry 50(1):22-27, 2001.
[44] Thut G, Veniero D, Romei V, et al. Rhythmic TMS causes local entrainment of natural oscillatory signatures. Curr Biol. 2011 Jul 26;21(14):1176-85.
[45] Boggio PS, Rocha M, Oliveira MO, et al. Noninvasive brain stimulation with high-frequency and low- intensity repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation treatment for posttraumatic stress disorder. J Clin Psychiatry. 2010 Aug;71(8):992-9.
[46] Cohen H, Kaplan Z, Kotler M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;161(3):515-24.
[47] Cohen H, Kaplan Z, Kotler M, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the right dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in posttraumatic stress disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2004 Mar;161(3):515-24.
[48] Grisaru N, Amir M, Cohen H,et al. Effect of transcranial magnetic stimulation in posttraumatic stress disorder: a preliminary study. Biol Psychiatry 44(1):52-55, 1998.
[49] McCann, UD, Kimbrell TA, Morgan CM, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder. Arch Gen Psychiatry 55(3):276-279, 1998.
[50] Trevizol AP, Barros MD, Silva PO, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for posttraumatic stress disorder: an updated systematic review and meta-analysis. Trends Psychiatry Psychother. 2016 Jan-Mar;38(1):50-5.
[51] Ebert U and Ziemann U. Altered seizure susceptibility after high-frequency transcranial magnetic stimulation in rats. Neurosci Lett 1999 Oct 8;273(3):155-8.
[52] Menkes DL and Gruenthal M. Slow-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in a patient with focal cortical dysplasia. Epilepsia 2000 Feb;41(2):240-2.
[53] Steinhoff BJ, Stodieck SR, Zivcec Z, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) of the brain in patients with mesiotemporal epileptic foci. Clin Electroencephalogr 1993 Jan;24(1):1-5.
[54] Tassinari CA, Michelucci R, Forti A, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in epileptic patients: usefulness and safety. Neurology 1990 Jul;40(7):1132-3.
[55] Centonze D, Koch G, Versace V, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex ameliorates spasticity in multiple sclerosis. Neurology. 2007 Mar 27;68(13):1045-50.
[56] Koch G, Rossi S, Prosperetti C, et al. Improvement of hand dexterity following motor cortex rTMS in multiple sclerosis patients with cerebellar impairment. Mult Scler. 2008 Aug;14(7):995-8.
[57] Nielsen JF, Sinkjaer T and Jakobsen J. Treatment of spasticity with repetitive magnetic stimulation; a double-blind placebo-controlled study. Mult Scler 1996; 2: 227–232.
[58] Addiction recovery (ie smoking cessation, alcoholism) rTMS x 4
Dinur-Klein L, Dannon P, Hadar A, et al. Smoking cessation induced by deep repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the prefrontal and insular cortices: a prospective, randomized controlled trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Nov 1;76(9):742-9.
[59] Gorelick DA, Zangen A, George MS. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of substance addiction. Ann N Y Acad Sci. 2014 Oct;1327:79-93.
[60] Staroverov AT, Vil’yanov VB, Raigorodskii YM, et al. Transcranial magnetotherapy in the complex treatment of affective disorders in patients with alcoholism. Neurosci Behav Physiol. 2009 Jun;39(5):507-11.
[61] Wing VC, Barr MS, Wass CE, et al. Brain stimulation methods to treat tobacco addiction. Brain Stimul. 2013 May;6(3):221-30
[62] Mally J and Stone TW. Therapeutic and “dose-dependent” effect of repetitive microelectroshock induced by transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson’s Disease. J Neurosci Res 57(6):935-940, 1999.
[63] Pascual-Leone A, Valls-Sole J, Brasil-Neto JP, et al. Akinesia in Parkinson’s disease. Ii. Effects of subthreshold repetitive transcranial motor cortex stimulation. Neurology 44(5):892-898, 1994.
[64] Popa T, Russo M, Vidailhet M, et al. Cerebellar rTMS stimulation may induce prolonged clinical benefits in essential tremor, and subjacent changes in functional connectivity: an open label trial. Brain Stimul. 2013 Mar;6(2):175-9.
[65] Strafella AP, Paus T, Barrett J, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the human prefrontal cortex induces dopamine release in the caudate nucleus. J Neurosci 21(15):RC157, 2001.
[66] Han JQ, Liu Q, Sun CT, et al. Efficacy and safety of low-frequency rotary magnetic fields in the treatment of patients with advanced malignant tumors.
[67] Zhang X, Zhang H, Zheng C, et al. Extremely low frequency (ELF) pulsed-gradient magnetic fields inhibit malignant tumour growth at different biological levels. Cell Biol Int. 2002;26(7):599- 603.
[68] Du L, Fan H, Miao H, et al. Extremely low frequency magnetic fields inhibit adipogenesis of human mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 35(7): 519–530, 2014.
[69] Luzi L, Ferrulli A, Drago L, et al. Deep Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (dTMS) Exerts Anti-Obesity Effects Via Microbiota Modulation. Endocrine Society 2017 Annual Conference, Orlando FL. Abstract: LB SUN 72.
[70] Cohrs S, Tergau F, Riech S, et al. High-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation delays rapid eye movement sleep. Neuroreport. 1998 Oct 26;9(15):3439-43.
[71] Massimini M, Ferrarelli F, Esser SK, et al. Triggering sleep slow waves by transcranial magnetic stimulation. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2007, May 15;104(20):8496-501.
[72] Avenanti A, Coccia M, Ladavas E, et al. Low-frequency rTMS promotes use-dependent motor plasticity in chronic stroke: A randomized trial. Neurology. 2012 Jan 24;78(4):256-64.
[73] Zhao N, Zhang J, Qiu M, et al. Scalp acupuncture plus low-frequency rTMS promotes repair of brain white matter tracts in stroke patients: A DTI study. J Integr Neurosci. 2018; 17(1): 61–9.
[74] Drug delivery enhancement (via increased electroporation) x1
Novickij V, Grainys A, Švedienė J, et al. Microsecond pulsed magnetic field improves efficacy of antifungal agents on pathogenic microorganisms. Bioelectromagnetics 35(5): 347–353, 2014.
[75] Zhu, M., Yang, Z., Yu, H., et al. (2020). The Efficacy and Safety of Low-frequency Rotating Static Magnetic Field Therapy Combined with Chemotherapy on Advanced Lung Cancer Patients: A Randomized, Double-blinded, Controlled Clinical
[76] Trial. International Journal of Radiation Biology, 1–26. Effect of Pulse Magnetic Field Stimulus on Blood Flow using Digital Infrared Thermal Imaging. Lee Hyun Sook. J Korean Magnetics Society, October 2011, 21 (5), 180-184.
[77] Fu YC, Lin CC, Chang JK, et al. A novel single pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates osteogenesis of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells and bone repair. PLoS One. 2014 Mar 14;9(3):e91581.
[78] Giczi J and Guseo A. Treatment of headache by pulsating electromagnetic field a preliminary report. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 74-76, 1987.
[79] Grunner O. Cerebral use of a pulsating magnetic field in neuropsychiatry patients with long-term headache. EEG EMG Z Elektroenzephalogr Verwandte Geb (1985) Dec;16(4):227-230.
[80] Lazar L and Farago A. Experiences of patients suffering from migraine-type headache treated with magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 137-140, 1987.
[81] Omar AS, Awadalla MA, ElLatif MA. Evaluation of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of patients with discogenic lumbar radiculopathy. Int J Rheum Dis. 2012 Oct;15(5): 101-8.
[82] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[83] Aktas I, Akgun K, Cakmak B. Therapeutic effect of pulsed electromagnetic field in conservative treatment of subacromial impingement syndrome. Clin Rheumatol. 2007;26(8): 1234– 1239.
[84] Leippold T, Strebel RT, Huwyler M et al. Sacral magnetic stimulation in non-inflammatory chronic pelvic pain syndrome. BJU Int. 2005;95: 838–41.
[85] Shafford HL, Hellyer PW, Crump KT et al. Use of a pulsed electromagnetic field for treatment of postoperative pain in dogs: A pilot study. Vet Anaesth Analg. 2002;29(1): 43–48.
[86] Tesic D, Djuric M, Pekaric-Nadj N et al. PEMF aided pain reduction in stomatology. 21st Annual Meeting of Bioelectromagnetics Society, Long Beach, CA, June 1999. Abstract P-141: 157.
[87] Lin ML, Lin MH, Fen JJ et al. (2010) A comparison between pulsed radiofrequency and electro-acupuncture for relieving pain in patients with chronic low back pain. Acupunct Electrother Res 35(3–4): 133–146
[88] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[89] Rauscher E, Van Bise WL. Pulsed magnetic field treatment of chronic back pain. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 23rd Annual Meeting, St. Paul, MN, June, 2001.
[90] Stewart DJ, Stewart JE. (1989) The destabilization of an abnormal physiological balanced situation, chronic musculoskeletal pain, utilizing magnetic biological device. Acta Med Hung 46(4): 323–337.
[91] Van Zundert J, Patijn J, Kessels A, et al. Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial. Pain 2007; 127(1–2): 173–82.
[92] Capanna R, Donati D, Masetti C, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on patients undergoing massive bone graft following bone tumor resection. A double blind study. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1994 Sep;(306):213-21.
[93] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics 2009 30:423-430.
[94] Esposito M, Lucariello A, Riccio I, et al. Differentiation of human osteoprogenitor cells increases after treatment with pulsed electromagnetic fields. In Vivo. 2012 Mar-Apr;26(2):299-304.
[95] Johnson MT, Vanscoy-Cornett A, Vesper DN, et al. Electromagnetic fields used clinically to improve bone healing also impact lymphocyte proliferation in vitro. Biomed Sci Instrum. 2001;37:215-20.
[96] Kim EC, Leesungbok R, Lee SW, et al. Effects of moderate intensity magnetic fields on human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Apr;36(4):267-76.
[97] Ongaro A, Pellati A, Bagheri L, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulate osteogenic differentiation in human bone marrow and adipose tissue derived mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Sep;35(6):426-36.
[98] Song M, Zhao D, Wei S, et al. The effect of electromagnetic fields on the proliferation and the osteogenic or adipogenic differentiation of mesenchymal stem cells modulated by dexamethasone. Bioelectromagnetics. 35:479–490, 2014.
[99] Sun LY, Hsieh DK, Yu TC, Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on the proliferation and differentiation potential of human bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics 2009 May;30(4):251-60.
[100] Zhou J, Wang JQ, Ge BF, et al. Different electromagnetic field waveforms have different effects on proliferation, differentiation and mineralization of osteoblasts in vitro. Bioelectromagnetics. 2014 Jan;35(1):30-8.
[101] Bassett CA, Pawluk RJ, Pilla AA. Augmentation of bone repair by inductively coupled electromagnetic fields. Science. 1974; 184(4136): 575–7.
[102] Ehnert S, Schröter S, Aspera-Werz RH, et al. Translational Insights into Extremely Low Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (ELF-PEMFs) for Bone Regeneration after Trauma and Orthopedic Surgery. J Clin Med. 2019 Nov 20;8(12):2028.
[103] Garland DE, Adkins RH, Matsuno NN, et al. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteoporosis at the knee in individuals with spinal cord injury. J Spinal Cord Med 1999 Winter;22(4):239-45
[104] Liu HF, Yang L, He HC, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields on postmenopausal osteoporosis in Southwest China: a randomized, active-controlled clinical trial. Bioelectromagnetics. 2013 May;34(4):323-32.
[105] Montagnani AM. Effects of pulsed magnetic fields in the therapy of osteoporosis induced by ovariectomy in the rat. Boll Soc Ital Biol Sper 1993 Jul-Aug;69(7-8):469-75.
[106] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, et al. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9).
[107] Kovalchuk VI, Ahtirskii VI, Dubovoi LV. Use of weak extremely-low-frequency magnetic fields in treatment of oncological diseases. Fizicheskaia Meditzina 4(1-2):93-95. Abstracts of All-Russian Conference “Use of Low-Level Laser Radiation and Magnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine,” Obninsk, Russia, 21-23 June 1994.
[108] Letiagin VP, Dobrynin YV, Rybakov YL, et al. Application of the turbulent magnetic field (TMF)-influence for decrease of the postoperative lymphorrhea after surgical treatment of the locally spread breast cancer. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 24th Annual Meeting, 23-27 June, Quebec City, QC, Canada, Abstract (poster) No. P-26, p. 162, 2002.
[109] Lubennikov VA, Lazarev AF, Golubtsov VT. First experience in using a whole-body magnetic field exposure in treating cancer patients. Vopr Onkol 41(2):140-141, 1995.
[110] Milevskaya TG, Shitikov BD, Prohorova VI, et al. Eddy magnetic field therapy as a part of combined therapy for breast cancer. Mammologia (2):51-55, 1997.
[111] Randoll UG and Pangan RM. The role of complex biophysical-chemical therapies for cancer. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 27(3):341-346, 1992.
[112] Ronchetto F, Barone D, Cintorino M, et al. Static and extremely low frequency (ELF) magnetic fields to treat cancer: a pilot study on patients with advanced neoplasm to assess safety and acute toxicity. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27 June, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 14-1, p. 137, 2003.
[113] Akbarnejad Z, Eskandary H, Dini L, et al Cytotoxicity of temozolomide on human glioblastoma cells is enhanced by the concomitant exposure to an extremely low-frequency electromagnetic field (100Hz, 100G). Biomed Pharmacother, 92 (2017), pp. 254-264
[114] Omote Y, Hosokawa M, Komatsumoto M, et al. Treatment of experimental tumors with a combination of a pulsing magnetic field and an antitumor drug. Jpn J Cancer Res. 1990 Sep;81(9):956- 61.
[115] Ruiz-Gómez MJ, de la Peña L, Prieto-Barcia MI, et al. Influence of 1 and 25 Hz, 1.5 mT magnetic fields on antitumor drug potency in a human adenocarcinoma cell line. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002 Dec;23(8):578-85.
[116] Yuan LQ, Wang C, Zhu K, et al. The antitumor effect of static and extremely low frequency magnetic fields against nephroblastoma and neuroblastoma. Bioelectromagnetics. 2018 Jul;39(5):375-385.
[117] Akan Z, Aksu B, Tulunay A. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields affect the immune response of monocyte-derived macrophages to pathogens. Bioelectromagnetics 31:603–612, 2010.
[118] Bayir E, Bilgi E, Şendemir-Ürkmez A, et al. The effects of different intensities, frequencies and exposure times of extremely low-frequency electromagneticfields on the growth of Staphylococcus aureus and Escherichia coli O157:H7. Electromagn Biol Med. 2015 Mar;34(1):14-8.
[119] Cellini L, Grande R, Di Campli E, et al. Bacterial response to the exposure of 50 Hz electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics 29:302-311 (2008).
[120] Nakasono S, Ikehata M, Koana T, et al. A 50 Hz, 14 mT magnetic field is not mutagenic or co-mutagenic in bacterial mutation assays. Mutat Res 471(1-2):127-134, 2000.
[121] Pica F, Serafino A, Divizia M, et al. Effect of extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields (ELF-EMF) on Kaposi’s sarcoma-associated herpes virus in BCBL-1 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2006 Apr;27(3):226-32.
[122] Strasak L, Vetterl V, Smarda J. Effects of low-frequency magnetic fields on bacteria escherichia coli. Bioelectrochemistry 55(1-2):161-164, 2002.
[123] Rosado MM, Simkó M, Mattsson M-O, et al. (2018) Immune-Modulating Perspectives for Low Frequency Electromagnetic Fields in Innate Immunity. Front. Public Health 6:85. Intensities listed in this study: 1.0 mT, 4 mT, .1 mT, 8uT, .5 mT, 1.5 mT, 10 uT, 1.2 uT, 3.5 mT, 6.6 uT, 5uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, 3.6 uT, .2 uT, 1 mT, 100 uT, 500 uT, 500 uT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 1 mT, 2.25 mT, 45 mT, 1 mT, 4 mT, 100 uT, 10 uT, 1.5 mT, 1.2 mT, 5 mT, 5 mT, 1 mT, 8 mT, Low intensity GHz, 2.8 mT, 100 uT, .3 mT, 8 mT, 12.5 mT,, 1 mT, 1 mT, 6 mT, 2.2 mT, 1 mT
[124] Cho H, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Neural stimulation on human bone marrow-derived mesenchymal stem cells by extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields. Biotechnol Prog. 2012 Sep-Oct;28(5):1329-35.
[125] Detlavs I, Karklinsch E, Murniece M, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields in treatment patients with diseases of nervous system (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 4th International Congress, 19-21 November, Zagreb, Croatia, 1998.
[126] Di Loreto S, Falone S, Caracciolo V, et al. Fifty hertz extremely low-frequency magnetic field exposure elicits redox and trophic response in rat-cortical neurons. J Cell Physiol. 2009 May;219(2):334-43.
[127] Hei WH, Byun SH, Kim JS, et al. Effects of electromagnetic field (PEMF) exposure at different frequency and duration on the peripheral nerve regeneration: in vitro and in vivo study. Int J Neurosci. 2016 Aug;126(8):739-48.
[128] Hei WH, Kim S, Park JC, et al. Schwann-like cells differentiated from human dental pulp stem cells combined with a pulsed electromagnetic field can improve peripheral nerve regeneration. Bioelectromagnetics. 2016 Apr; 37(3): 163–174.
[129] Jung I, Kim H, Noh R, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic fields on NGF induced neuronal differentiation of PC12 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 35:459–469, 2014.
[130] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Adamek, M, et al. The variable magnetic fields in the complex treatment of neurological diseases (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), 3rd International Congress, 29 February-3 March, Nancy, France, 1996.
[131] Neumüller J, Tohidast-Akrad M, Partsch G, et al. Changes in phagocytosis and the percentage of lymphocyte subsets during therapy with pulsed magnetic fields (PMF). Journal of Bioelectricity 8(1), 29-45 (1989).
[132] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[133] Varani K, Gessi S, Merighi S, et al. Effect of low frequency electromagnetic fields on A2A adenosine receptors in human neutrophils. Br J Pharmacol. 2002 May;136(1):57-66.
[134] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Ravani A, et al. Adenosine receptors as a biological pathway for the anti-inflammatory and beneficial effects of low frequency low energy pulsed electromagnetic fields. Mediators Inflamm (2017) 2017:2740963.
[135] Varani K, Vincenzi F, Targa M, et al. Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field exposure on adenosine receptors in rat brain. Bioelectromagnetics. 2012 May;33(4):279-87.
[136] Vianale G, Reale M, Amerio P, et al. Extremely low frequency electro- magnetic field enhances human keratinocyte cell growth and decreases proinflammatory chemokine production. Br J Dermatol. 2008 Jun;158(6):1189-96
[137] Vincenzi F, Targa M, Corciulo C, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields increased the anti-inflammatory effect of A2A and A3 adenosine receptors in human T/C-28a2 chondrocytes and hFOB 1.19 osteoblasts. PLoS One. 2013 May 31;8(5):e65561.
[138] Iashchenko LV, Chistiakov IV, Gakh LM, et al. Low-frequency magnetic fields in the combined therapy of inflammatory lung diseases. Probl Tuberk. 1988; 3: 53–6.
[139] Nindl G, Johnson MT, Balcavage WX. Low-frequency electromagnetic field effects on lymphocytes: Potential for treatment of inflammatory diseases. In: Ayrapetyan SN, Markov MS (eds) Bioelectromagnetic Medicine. Marcel Dekker, New York, 369–89, 2004.
[140] Lagroye I, Bersani F, Billaudel B, et al. Effects of ELF- and RF-EMF on the apoptotic process. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 25th Annual Meeting, 22-27, Wailea, Maui, HI, Abstract No. 13-8, p. 134, 2003.
[141] Li Y, Zhao L, Xing X, et al. Effects of different frequency electromagnetic fields on the differentiation of midbrain neural stem cells. Space Med Med Eng (Beijing). 2002 Oct;15(5):374-6.
[142] Nikolova L, Popov A, Klouchek E. Effect of interference current and low-frequency magnetic field on tissue regeneration. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult(3):19-23, 1984.
[143] Park JE, Seo YK, Yoon HH, et al. Electromagnetic fields induce neural differentiation of human bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells via ROS mediated EGFR activation. Neurochem Int. 2013 Mar;62(4):418-24.
[144] Wu H, Ren K, Zhao W, et al. Effect of electromagnetic fields on proliferation and differentiation of cultured mouse bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. J Huazhong Univ Sci Technolog Med Sci. 2005;25(2):185-7.
[145] Zhang X, Zhang J, Qu X, et al. Effects of different extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on osteoblasts. Electromagn Biol Med. 2007;26(3):167-77.
[146] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54.
[147] Fan W, Qian F, Ma Q, et al. 50 Hz electromagnetic field exposure promotes proliferation and cytokine production of bone marrow mesenchymal stem cells. Int J Clin Exp Med. 2015 May 15;8(5):7394-404.
[148] Bech P, Lindberg L, Straaso B, et al. 2-year follow-up study of patients participating in our transcranial pulsating electromagnetic fields (T-PEMF) augmentation in treatment-resistant depression. Acta Neuropsychiatrica 2015.
[149] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[150] Martiny K, Lunde M, Bech P: Transcranial low voltage pulsed electromagnetic fields in patients with treatment-resistant depression. Biol Psychiatry 2010, 68:163–169.
[151] Massot O, Grimaldi B, Bailly J-M, et al. Magnetic field desensitizes 5-HT(1B) receptor in brain: pharmacological and functional studies. Brain Res 858(1):143-150, 2000.
[152] Rohan ML, Yamamoto RT, Ravichandran CT, et al. Rapid mood-elevating effects of low field magnetic stimulation in depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2014 Aug 1;76(3):186-93.
[153] Straaso B, Lauritzen L, Lunde M, et al. Dose-remission of pulsating electromagnetic fields as augmentation in therapy-resistant depression: a randomized, double blind controlled study. Acta Neuropsychiatrica 2014.
[154] Pawluk W, Dennis R, Tommerdahl M. Tracking the effects of pulsed electro-magnetic field (PEMF) on individuals with a history of traumatic brain injury with the Brain Gauge. Cortical Metrics Magazine – Vol. 1, pages 1-4. 2017. https://www.corticalmetrics.com/publications.
[155] Grant G, Cadossi R, Steinberg G. Protection against focal cerebral ischemia following exposure to a pulsed electromagnetic field. Bioelectromagnetics. 1994;15(3):205-16.
[156] Cichoń N, Bijak M, Czarny P, Miller E, Synowiec E, Sliwinski T, Saluk-Bijak J. Increase in Blood Levels of Growth Factors Involved in the Neuroplasticity Process by Using an Extremely Low Frequency Electromagnetic Field in Post-stroke Patients. Front Aging Neurosci. 2018 Sep 26;10:294.
[157] Bier RR and Estersohn HS. A new treatment for charcot joint in the diabetic foot. J Am Podiatr Med Assoc 77(2):63-69, 1987.
[158] Cieslar G, Sieron A, Radelli J. (1995) The estimation of therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic neuropathy including vibratory sensibility. Balneol Pol 37(1): 23-27.
[159] Laitl-Kobierska A, Cieslar G, Sieron A, et al. Influence of alternating extremely low frequency elf magnetic field on structure and function of pancreas in rats. Bioelectromagnetics 23(1):49-58, 2002.
[160] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Jochan K, et al. The therapeutic effect of variable magnetic fields in patients with diabetic retinopathy. Balneol Pol 37(2):44-47, 1995.
[161] Brola W, Wegrzyn W, Czernicki J. Effect of variable magnetic field on motor impairment and quality of life in patients with multiple sclerosis. Wiad Lek. 2002;55(3-4):136-43.
[162] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field therapy of multiple sclerosis by the Gyuling–Bordacs device: Double-blind, cross-over and open studies. J Bioelectr 1987; 6: 23–25.
[163] Mix E, Henssen HL, Lehmitz R, et al. Pulsing electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment of patients with multiple sclerosis (MS) and migraine. Effect on cell volume and phagocytic activity of blood cells and clinical results (meeting abstract). J Bioelectr 9(2):242 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, 1990.
[164] Terlaki, G.; Gyorgy, B.; Payer, A. Clinical experiences by magnetotherapy. Hungarian Symposium on Magnetotherapy (with International Participation), 2nd symposium, 16-17 May, Szekesfehervar, Hungary, p. 175-179, 1987.
[165] Pastore A, Curr SB, Spinelli M. Interpretation of low-frequency pulsating magnetic field effects on patients affected by peripheral arteriopathy. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 14(1-3):207-213 Presented at the first international A.B.A.EM. Meeting, Venice, February 23-25, 1984, 1985.
[166] Guseo A. Physiological effects of pulsing electromagnetic field. In First Congress of European Bioelectromagnetics Association (EBEA), Brussels, Belgium, January 1992, s.31.
[167] Li F, Yuan Y, Guo Y, et al. Pulsed magnetic field accelerate proliferation and migration of cardiac microvascular endothelial cells.Bioelectromagnetics. 2015 Jan;36(1):1-9.
[168] Ascherl R, Blumel G, Lechner F, et al. On the treatment of loosening of endoprostheses by means of pulsing electromagnetic fields. Bioelectricity Bioenerg 14:161–167, 1985.
[169] Konrad K, Sevcic K, Folde K, et al. 1996. Therapy with pulsed electromagnetic fields in aseptic loosening of total hip prostheses. A prospective study. Clin Rheumatol 15:325–328.
[170] Rispoli FP, Corolla FM, Mussner R. 1988. The use of low frequency pulsing electromagnetic fields in patients with painful hip prostheses. J Bioelectricity 7:181–187.
[171] Mayer-Wagner S, Passberger A, Sievers B, et al. Effects of low frequency electromagnetic fields on the chondrogenic differentiation of human mesenchymal stem cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2011 May;32(4):283-90.
[172] Sherman RA, Acosta NM, Robson L. Treatment of migraine with pulsing electromagnetic fields: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Headache. 1999 Sep;39(8):567-75.
[173] Chen Y, Hong L, Zeng Y, et al. Power frequency magnetic fields induced reactive oxygen species-related autophagy in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014 Dec;57:108-14.
[174] Del Re B, Bersani F, Mesirca P, et al. Synthesis of DnaK we have helped and GroEL in Escherichia coli cells exposed to different magnetic field signals. Bioelectrochemistry. 2006 Sep;69(1):99-103.
[175] Singh S, Khanduja KL, Mittal PK. Influence of 50-hz sinusoidal electromagnetic field on hepatic and pulmonary phase I and II drug-metabolizing enzymes in mice. Electro Magnetobiol 17(3):343-350, 1998.
[176] Tsisel’skiĭ IuV. The effect of a pulsed electromagnetic field on ocular hydrodynamics in open-angle glaucoma. Oftalmol Zh. 1990;(2):89-92.
[177] Skrinnik AV and Kovalchuk AS. The impulse electromagnetic field in the treatment of dystrophic lesions of the retina. Oftalmol Zh(8):459-462, 1989.
[178] Verzin AA. Action of gentamycin against a background of magnetotherapy of the anterior chamber in a traumatic infected erosion of the cornea. Antibiotiki. 1982 Oct;27(10):774-5.
[179] Kim HJ, Jung J, Park JH, et al. Extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields induce neural differentiation in bone marrow derived mesenchymal stem cells. Exp Biol Med (Maywood). 2013 Aug 1;238(8):923-31.
[180] Sieron A, Labus L, Nowak P, Cieslar G, Brus H, Durczok A, Zagzil T, Kostrzewa RM, Brus R. Alternating extremely low frequency magnetic field increases turnover of dopamine and serotonin in rat frontal cortex. Bioelectromagnetics 25:426– 430, 2004.
[181] Lyskov EB, Juutilainen J, Jousmaki V, et al. Effects of 45 Hz magnetic fields on the functional state of the human brain. Bioelectromagnetics (1993)14: 87–95.
[182] Nindl G, Spandau DF, Vesper DN, et al. Therapeutic potential of elf magnetic fields in inflammatory skin diseases. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. 13-1, p. 73-74, 2000.
[183] Yurina NA, Radostina AI, Savin BM, et al. Mast cells as a test of body state during electromagnetic exposure of varying intensity. Aviakosm Ekolog Med 31(2):43-47, 1997.
[184] Vannoni D, Albanese A, Battisti E, et al. In vitro exposure of human osteoarthritic chondrocytes to ELF fields and new therapeutic application of musically modulated electromagnetic fields: biological evidence. J Biol Regul Homeost Agents. 2012 Jan-Mar;26(1):39-49.
[185] Veronesi F, Torricelli P, Giavaresi G, et al. In vivo effect of two different pulsed electromagnetic field frequencies on osteoarthritis. Orthop Res. 2014 May;32(5):677-85.
[186] Ongaro A, Varani K, Masieri FF, et al. Electromagnetic fields (EMFs) and adenosine receptors modulate prostaglandin E(2) and cytokine release in human osteoarthritic synovial fibroblasts. J Cell Physiol. 2012 Jun;227(6):2461-9.
[187] Guseo A. Pulsing electromagnetic field effects small intestine motility. European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 33, 1993.
[188] Iorio R, Monache SD, Bennato F, et al.Involvement of mitochondrial activity in mediating ELF-EMF stimulatory effect on human sperm motility. Bioelectromagnetics 32:15–27, 2011.
[189] Ottani V, Monti MG, Morocutti M, et al. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic fields on regenerating rat liver after partial hepatectomy. J Anat 139(2):253-263, 1984.
[190] Ottani V, Monti MG, Morocutti M, et al. Influence of pulsed electromagnetic fields on regenerating rat liver after partial hepatectomy. J Anat 139(2):253-263, 1984.
[191] Randelli P, Menon A, Ragone V, et al. Effects of the pulsed electromagnetic field PST® on human tendon stem cells: a controlled laboratory study. BMC Complement Altern Med. 2016 Aug 18;16:293.
[192] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[193] Benazzo F, Zanon G, Pederzini L et al. Effects of biophysical stimulation in patients undergoing arthroscopic reconstruction of anterior cruciate ligament: Prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2008;16(6): 595–601.
[194] Thamsborg G, Florescu A, Oturai P et al. (July 2005) Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with pulsed electromagnetic fields: A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Osteoarthr Cartil 13(7): 575–581.
[195] Rodemann HP, Wecke P, Jaeschke M. Low-frequency electromagnetic fields induce premature terminal differentiation of in-vitro cultured human skin and lung fibroblasts. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 27(3):269- 280, 1992.
[196] Sieron A, Cieslar G, Zmudzinski J. The therapeutical effect of variable magnetic field in patients with multiple sclerosis (meeting abstract). European Bioelectromagnetics Assoc. (EBEA), 2nd Congress, 9-11 December, Bled, Slovenia, p. 39, 1993.
[197] Lee HM, Kwon UH, Kim H, et al. Pulsed electromagnetic field stimulates cellular proliferation in human into vertebral disc cells. Yonsei Med J. 2010;51:954–9.
[198] De Loecker W, Cheng N, Delport PH. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on membrane transport. In Emerging Electromagnetic Medicine. Ed’s: O’Connor ME, Bentall, RHC, Monahan, JC. New York: Springer-Verlag, 1990, pp. 45–59.
[199] Cheing GL, Wan JW, Kai Lo S. (November 2005) Ice and pulsed electromagnetic field to reduce pain and swelling after distal radius fractures. J Rehabil Med 37(6): 372–377.
[200] Markov MS, Pilla AA. (1995) Electromagnetic field stimulation of soft tissue: Pulsed radiofrequency treatment of post-operative pain and edema. Wounds 7(4): 143–151.
[201] Huegel J, Chan PYW, Weiss SN, et al.. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy alters early healing in a rat model of rotator cuff injury and repair: Potential mechanisms. J Orthop Res. 2021 Oct 17.
[202] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for migraine and other headaches: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther 18(3):101-109, 2001.
[203] Sandyk R. The influence of the pineal gland on migraine and cluster headaches and effects of treatment with picoTesla magnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov-Dec;67(1-4):145-71, 1992.
[204] Thomas AW, Prato FS. Magnetic field based pain therapeutics and diagnostics. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 24th Annual Meeting, Quebec City, PQ, Canada, June, 2002
[205] Thuile C, Walzl M. (2002) Evaluation of electromagnetic fields in the treatment of pain in patients with lumbar radiculopathy or the whiplash syndrome. Neuro Rehabilitation.17: 63-7.
[206] Ay S, Evcik D. (April 2009) The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of knee osteoarthritis: A randomized, placebo-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 29(6): 663–666.
[207] Fleming JL, Persinger MA, Koren SA. (1994) Magnetic pulses elevate nociceptive thresholds: Comparisons with opiate receptor compounds in normal and seizure-induced brain-damaged rats. Electro Magnetobiol. 13(1): 67–75.
[208] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics
[209] Foley-Nolan D, Moore K, Codd M et al. (1992) Low energy high frequency pulsed electromagnetic therapy for acute whiplash injuries. A double blind randomized controlled study. Scand J Rehabil Med 24(1): 51–59.
[210] Forestier R, Françon A, Saint-Arromand F et al. (April 2007a) Are SPA therapy and pulsed electromagnetic field therapy effective for chronic neck pain? Randomised clinical trial. First part: Clinical evaluation. Ann Readapt Med Phys 50(3): 140–147.
[211] Thomas AW, Graham K, Prato FS et al. (Winter 2007) A randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled clinical trial using a low-frequency magnetic field in the treatment of musculoskeletal chronic pain. Pain Res Manage 12(4): 249–258.
[212] Hedén P, Pilla AA. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on postoperative pain: A double-blind randomized pilot study in breast augmentation patients. Aesthetic Plast Surg. 2008;32(4): 660–66.
[213] Jorgensen WA, Frome BM, Wallach C. Electrochemical therapy of pelvic pain: Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) on tissue trauma. Eur J Surg. 1994;160(574 Suppl): 83–86.
[214] Reed MW, Bickerstaff DR, Hayne CR, Wyman A, Davies J. Pain relief after inguinal herniorrhaphy. Ineffectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic energy. Br J Clin Pract. 1987;41(6): 782–84.
[215] Mostert S and Kesselring J. Effect of pulsed magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients withmultiple sclerosis – a randomized controlled trial. Mult Scler 2005; 11: 302–305.
[216] Piatkowski J, Kern S and Ziemssen T. Effect of BEMER magnetic field therapy on the level of fatigue in patients with multiple sclerosis: a randomized double – blind controlled trial. J [434] [434] Altern Complement Med 2009; 15: 507–511.Sandyk R and Dann LC. Weak electromagnetic fields attenuate tremor in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. 79 (3-4): 199-212, 1994.
[217] Sandyk, R. Premenstrual exacerbation of symptoms in multiple sclerosis is attenuated by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. 83 (3-4): 187-198, 1995.
[218] Sandyk R. Treatment with weak electromagnetic fields improves fatigue associated with multiple sclerosis. IntJ Neurosci. Feb;84: 177–186, 1996.
[219] Sandyk R. Application of weak electromagnetic fields facilitates sensory–motor integration in patients with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:101 – 110, 1996.
[220] Sandyk R. Weak electromagnetic fields potentiate the effects of 4-aminopyridine in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Mar; 85:125 – 129, 1996.
[221] Sandyk, R. Immediate recovery of cognitive functions and resolution of fatigue by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci Aug;90(1-2):59-74, 1997.
[222] Sandyk R. Resolution of sleep paralysis by weak electromagnetic fields in a patient with multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):145-57, 1997.
[223] Sandyk R. Treatment with electromagnetic fields reverses the long-term clinical course of a patient with chronic progressive multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Aug;90(3-4):177-85, 1997.
[224] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching--a behavioral syndrome associated with transcranial application of electromagnetic fields in multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):107-13, 1998.
[225] Sandyk R. Serotonergic neuronal atrophy with synaptic inactivation, not axonal degeneration, are the main hallmarks of multiple sclerosis. Int J Neurosci. Jul;95(1-2):133-40, 1998.
[226] Amirifalah Z, Firoozabadi SM, Shafiei SA. Local exposure of brain central areas to a pulsed ELF magnetic field for a purposeful change in EEG. Clin EEG Neurosci. 2013 Jan;44(1):44-52.
[227] Baker-Price LA, Persinger MA. Weak, but complex pulsed magnetic fields may reduce depression following traumatic brain injury. Percept Mot Skills. 1996 Oct;83(2):491-8.
[228] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Ossenkopp K-P, et al. Sex differences in conditioned taste aversion and in the effects of exposure to a specific pulsed magnetic field in deer mice Peromyscus Maniculatus. Physiol Behav 71(3-4):237-249, 2000.
[229] Choleris E, Thomas AW, Prato FS. A comparison of the effects of a 100 ut specific pulsed magnetic field and diazepam on anxiety-related behaviors in male CF1 mice. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 21st Annual Meeting, 20-24 June, Long Beach, CA, Abstract No. P-91, p. 129-130, 1999.
[230] Kalkan MT, Korpinar MA, Seker S, et al. The effect of the 50 Hz frequency sinusoidal magnetic field on the stress-related behavior of rats. Proceedings of the 2nd International Conference Biomedical Engineering Days, 20-22 May, Istanbul, Turkey, p.78-81, 1998.
[231] Semenova TP, Medvinskaia NI, Bliskovka GI, et al. Influence of electromagnetic fields on the emotional behavior of rats. Radiats Biol Radioecol 40(6):693-695, 2000.
[232] Wever R. Effects of low-level, low-frequency fields on human circadian rhythms; Neurosci-ResProgram- Bull. 1977 Jan; 15(1): p. 39-45.
[233] Wever, RA. (1987) The electromagnetic environment and the circadian rhythms of human subjects. In: M. Grandolfo, SM. Michaelson and A. Rindi (Eds.), Biological Effects and Dosimetry of Static and ELF Electromagnetic Fields, Plenum Press, New York, NY.
[234] Kavaliers M, Ossenkopp KP, Lipa SM. Day-night rhythms in the inhibitory effects of 60 Hz magnetic fields on opiate-mediated 'analgesic' behaviors of the land snail, Cepaea nemoralis. Brain Res. 1990 May 28;517(1-2):276-82.
[235] Kavaliers M, Ossenkopp KP, Prato FS, Innes DG, Galea LA, Kinsella DM, Perrot-Sinal TS. Spatial learning in deer mice: sex differences and the effects of endogenous opioids and 60 Hz magnetic fields. J Comp Physiol A. 1996 Nov;179(5):715-24
[236] Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, et al. (2006) Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Res Manag. Summer; 11(2): 85–90.
[237] Jadidi M, Biat SM, Sameni HR, et al. Mesenchymal stem cells that located in the electromagnetic fields improves rat model of Parkinson’s disease. Iran J Basic Med Sci. 2016 Jul;19(7):741-8.
[238] Sandyk R. Reversal of cognitive impairment in an elderly parkinsonian patient by transcranial application of picoTesla electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Sep;91(1-2):57-68, 1997.
[239] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves the response to levodopa in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Oct;91(3-4):189-97, 1997.
[240] Sandyk R. Freezing of gait in Parkinson’s disease is improved by treatment with weak electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Mar;85(1-2):111-24, 1996.
[241] Sandyk R. Speech impairment in Parkinson’s disease is improved by transcranial application of electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Nov;92(1-2):63-72, 1997.
[242] Sandyk R. Reversal of a body image disorder (macrosomatognosia) in Parkinson’s disease by treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields. Int J Neurosci. Feb;93(1-2):43-54, 1998.
[243] Sandyk R. Yawning and stretching induced by transcranial application of AC pulsed electromagnetic fields in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Mar;97(1-2):139-45, 1999
[244] Sandyk R. Treatment with AC pulsed electromagnetic fields improves olfactory function in Parkinson’s disease. Int J Neurosci. Apr;97(3-4):225-33, 1999.
[245] Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, et al.Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer. 2011 Aug 23;105(5):640-8.
[246] Goritskaya I, Vinokurov V, Uritsky V, et al. The treatment effect of elf magnetic fields on patients with ovarian tumours. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. P-16A, p. 99, 1995.
[247] Ning JT, Gajendran V, Porter C, et al. Potential clinical application of taxol and power frequency electromagnetic fields exposure on human prostate disorders. Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, 8-13 June, Bologna, Italy, Abstract No. I-7, p. 136-137.
[248] Zimmerman J, Pennison M, Brezovich I, et al. Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. British Journal of Cancer 2012, 106:307 – 313.
[249] Barbault A, Costa FP, Bottger B, et al. Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. J Exp Clin Cancer Res. 2009 Apr 14;28(1):51.
[250] Evangelou A, Toliopoulos I, Giotis C, Metsios A, Verginadis I, Simos Y, Havelas K, Hadziaivazis G, Karkabounas S. Functionality of natural killer cells from end-stage cancer patients exposed to coherent electromagnetic fields. Electromagn Biol Med. 2011 Mar;30(1):46-56.
[251] Ghannam MM, Al-Otaibi HA, Alanazy ES, et al. Magnetic field potential effects on the doxorubicin therapeutic activity in Ehrlich tumor growth. Saudi J Biol Sci. 2021 Apr;28(4):2566-2574.
[252] Anninos P, Kotini A, Adamopoulos A, et al. Magnelic stimulation can modulate seizures in epileptic patients. Brain Topogr. 2003 Fall;16(1):57-64.
[253] Anninos PA, Tsagas N, Jacobson JI, et al. The biological effects of magnetic stimulation in epileptic patients. Panminerva Med 1999 Sep;41(3):207-15.
[254] Antimonii GD and Salamov RA. Action of a modulated electromagnetic field on experimentally induced epileptiform brain activity in rats. Biull Eksp Biol Med 1980 Feb;89(2):145-8.
[255] Fadakar K, Saba V, Farzampour S. Effects of extremely low frequency electromagnetic field (50 Hz) on pentylenetetrazol-induced seizures in mice. Acta Neurol Belg. 2013 Jun;113(2):173-7.
[256] Jacobson JI. Pineal-hypothalamic tract mediation of picoTesla magnetic fields in the treatment of epilepsy and parkinson’s disease (meeting abstract). Bioelectromagnetics Society, 16th Annual Meeting, 12-17 June, Copenhagen, Denmark, Abstract No. P-69, p. 100, 1994.
[257] Ossenkopp KP, Cain DP. Inhibitory effects of acute exposure to low-intensity 60-Hz magnetic fields on electrically kindled seizures in rats. Brain Res 1988 Mar 1;442(2):255-60.
[258] Persinger MA, Saroka KS. Comparable proportions of classes of experiences and intracerebral consequences for surgical stimulation and external application of weak magnetic field patterns: implications for converging effects in complex partial seizures. Epilepsy Behav. 2013 Apr;27(1):220-4.
[259] Potschka H, Thun-Battersby S, Loscher W. Effect of low-intensity 50-Hz magnetic fields on kindling acquisition and fullykindled seizures in rats. Brain Res 1998 Nov 2;809(2):269-76.
[260] Nelson FR, Zvirbulis R, Pilla AA. Non-invasive electromagnetic field therapy produces rapid and substantial pain reduction in early knee osteoarthritis: A randomized double-blind pilot study. Rheumatol Int. 2013;33(8): 2169–73.
[261] Foley-Nolan D, Barry C, Coughlan RJ et al. (1990) Pulsed high frequency (27 MHz) electromagnetic therapy for persistent neck pain. A double blind, placebo-controlled study of 20 patients. Orthopedics 13(4):445–451.
[262] Pipitone N, Scott DL. Magnetic pulse treatment for knee osteoarthritis: A randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Curr Med Res Opin. 2001;17(3): 190–96.
[263] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu BF. (February 2006) The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of cervical osteoarthritis: A randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled trial. Rheumatol Int 26(4): 320–324.
[264]Rehacek, J.; Straub, J.; Benova, H. The effect of magnetic fields on coxarthroses. Fysiatr Revmatol Vestn 60(2):66-68, 1982.
[265] Webb CY, Lo SSL, Evans JH. 2003. Prevention of diabetic foot using low frequency magnetotherapy. The Diabetic Foot 6:138–150.
[266] Cañedo-Dorantes L, Soenksen LR, García-Sánchez C, et al. Efficacy and safety evaluation of systemic extremely low frequency magnetic fields used in the healing of diabetic foot ulcers—phase II data. Arch Med Res. 2015 Aug;46(6):470-8.
[267] Elrashid, Nesrein & Hamada, Hamada & Abdelmoety, Alshaimaa & Soliman, Gaber & Abbas, Rami. (2019). Additional effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields to laser therapy on management of diabetic foot ulcer: A single blind randomized controlled trial. Bioscience Research. 15. 3322-3328.
[268] Maestú C, Blanco M, Nevado A, et al. Reduction of pain thresholds in fibromyalgia after very low-intensity magnetic stimulation: a double-blinded, randomized placebo-controlled clinical trial. Pain Res Manag. 2013 Nov-Dec;18(6):e101-6.
[269] Shupak NM, McKay JC, Nielson WR, et al. (2006) Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: a double-blind placebo-controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Res Manag. Summer; 11(2): 85–90.
[270] Sutbeyaz ST, Sezer N, Koseoglu F, et al. (2009) Low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in fibromyalgia: a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical study. Clin J Pain. Oct;25(8): 722-8.
[271] Fischer G and Kokoschinegg PJ. The treatment of sleep disturbances and meteorosensitivity by pulsed magnetic fields of low intensity. Bioelectr 9(2):243 Third Symposium on Magnetotherapy and Magnetic Stimulation, 12-14 October 1989, Hungary, 1990.
[272] Pasche B. Low energy emission therapy (leet) for the treatment of insomnia and anxiety. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 22nd Annual Meeting, 11-16 June, Munich, Germany, Abstract No. P-151, p. 240-241, 2000.
[273] Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for insomnia: a double-blind, placebo- controlled study. Adv Ther Jul-Aug; 18(4):174-180, 2001.
[274] Persinger MA, Hoang V, Baker-Price L. Entrainment of stage 2 sleep spindles by weak, transcerebral magnetic stimulationin an “epileptic” woman. Electromagn Biol Med. 2009; 28(4):374-82.
[275] Tworoger SS, Davis S, Emerson SS, et al. Effect of a nighttime magnetic field exposure on sleep patterns in young women. Am J Epidemiol. 2004 Aug 1;160(3):224-9.
[276] But I and Varda NM. Functional magnetic stimulation: a new method for the treatment of girls with primary nocturnal enuresis? J Pediatr Urol. 2006 Oct;2(5):415-8.
[277] But I, Faganelj M, Sostaric A. Functional magnetic stimulation for mixed urinary incontinence. J Urol. 2005 May;173(5):1644-6.
[278] But I. Conservative treatment of female urinary incontinence with functional magnetic stimulation. Urology. 2003 Mar;61(3):558-61.
[279] But I. Functional magnetic stimulation for treatment of urinary incontinence – presentation of Pulsegen device. #433. ICS 2002 Annual Conference, Heidelberg, 28th - 30th August 2002. Meeting abstract.
[280] Di Carlo AL, Farrell, JM, Litovitz TA. Myocardial protection conferred by electromagnetic fields. Circulation 99(6):813-816, 1999.
[281] Scherlag BJ, Yamanashi WS, Hou Y, et al. Magnetism and cardiac arrhythmias. Cardiol Rev. 2004 Mar-Apr;12(2):85-96.
[282] Fitzsimmons RJ, Baylink DJ. Growth factors and electromagnetic fields in bone. Clin Plast Surg 1994 Jul;21(3):401-6.
[283] Hambly MF and Mooney V. Effect of smoking and pulsed electromagnetic fields on intradiscal pH in rabbits. Spine 17(6S):S83-S85, 1992.
[284] Mishima S. The effect of long-term pulsing electromagnetic field stimulation on experimental osteoporosis of rats. J UOEH 1988 Mar 1;10(1):31-45
[285] Rubin CT, McLeod KJ, Lanyon LE. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 1989 Mar;71(3):411-7.
[286] Poh PSP, Seeliger C, Unger M, et al. Osteogenic Effect and Cell Signaling Activation of Extremely Low-Frequency Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields in Adipose-Derived Mesenchymal Stromal Cells. Stem Cells Int. 2018 Jul 12;2018
[287] Goodwin T. Physiological and molecular genetic effects of time-varying electromagnetic fields on human neuronal cells. NASA Johnson Space Center, Houston, TX, United States. NASA/TP-2003-212054.
[288] Li Y, Yan X, Liu J, Let al. Pulsed electromagnetic field enhances brain-derived neurotrophic factor expression through L-type voltage-gated calcium channel- and Erk-dependent signaling pathways in neonatal rat dorsal root ganglion neurons. Neurochem Int. 2014 Sep;75:96-104.
[289] Longo FM, Yang T, et al. Electromagnetic fields influence NGF activity and levels following sciatic nerve transection. J Neurosci Res 55(2):230-237, 1999.
[290] Budak A, Zyss T, Bogusz B, et al Effect of low frequency alternating magnetic field on the growth in vitro of some pathogenic skin dermatophytes. Alpe Adria Microbiol J 7(3):191-196, 1998.
[291] Golbach LA, Scheer MH, Cuppen JJ, et al. Low-Frequency Electromagnetic Field Exposure Enhances Extracellular Trap Formation by Human Neutrophils through the NADPH Pathway. J Innate Immun. 2015;7(5):459-65.
[292] Mittenzwey R, Sussmuth R, Mei W. Effects of extremely low-frequency electromagnetic fields on bacteria -- the question of a co-stressing factor. Bioelectrochem Bioenerg 40(1):21-27, 1996.
[293] Winters WD, Brune JL, Darnell B. Virus suppressor factors induced in cultured cells by exposure in vitro to 60 Hz AC magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 8th Annual Meeting, 1-5 June 1986, Madison, WI, p. 31, 1986.
[294] Zhang J, Xu C, Wan Y, et al. Effects of extremely low frequency magnetic field on production of mannatide by α-hemolytic Streptococcus. Bioelectromagnetics. 37:331–337, 2016.
[295] M. Black, L. Soo, V. Papstein, Effects of low frequency magnetic fields on Na,K-ATPase activity, Bioelectrochemistry and Bioenergetics, Volume 38, Issue 2,1995, Pages 267-273,
[296] Zhang S, Clark M, Liu X, et al. The Effects of Bio-inspired Electromagnetic Fields on Healthy Enhancement with Case Studies. Emerging Science Journal 2019 Dec;3(6):369-381.
[297] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[298] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[299] Wang KW , Hladky SB . An upper limit for the effect of low frequency magnetic fields on ATP - sensitive potassium channels . Biochim Biophys Acta . 1994 ; 1195 : 218–222
Chapter 6 References
[1] Maziarz A, Kocan B, Bester M, et al. How electromagnetic fields can influence adult stem cells: positive and negative impacts. Stem Cell Res Ther. 2016 Apr 18;7(1):54. {20 mT did not work}
[2] Brighton, C.T., Friedenberg, Z.B., Black, J., 1979. Evaluation of the use of constant direct current in the treatment of non-union. In: Brighton, C.T. (Ed.), Electrical properties of bone and cartilage. New York: Plenum Press:519–545.
[3] Friedenberg ZB, Andrews ET, Smolenski BI, Pearl BW, Brighton CT. Bone reaction to varying amounts of direct current. Surg Gynecol Obstet 1970;131(5):894–9.
[4] Bassett, C.A.L., 1995. Bioelectromagnetics in the service of medicine. In: Blank, M. (Ed.), Electromagnetic Fields: Biological interactions and Mechanisms. Advances in chemistry Series, vol. 250. American chemical Society, Washington, DC, pp. 261–275
[5] Rubin, C.T., McLeod, K.J., Lanyon, L.E., 1989. Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 71 (3), 411–417.
[6] Diniz, P., K. Soejima, et al. (2002). Nitric oxide mediates the effects of pulsed electromagnetic field stimulation on the osteoblast proliferation and differentiation. Nitric Oxide 7(1): 18-23.
[7] Cheng, N., et al., 1982. The effect of electric currents on ATP generation, protein synthesis, and membrane transport in rat skin. Clin. Orthop. 171, 264–272.
[8] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[9] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[10] https://youtu.be/9WQ7WXdQreI?si=58si0waQJAWkCQ5e&t=1133
[11] Ellis WV. (1993) Pain control using high-intensity pulsed magnetic stimulation. Bioelectromagnetics. 14(6): 553-556.
[12] Hodaj H, Alibeu JP, Payen JF, et al. Treatment of Chronic Facial Pain Including Cluster Headache by Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation of the Motor Cortex With Maintenance Sessions: A Naturalistic Study. Brain Stimul. 2015 Jul-Aug;8(4):801-7.
[13] Lamusuo S, Hirvonen J, Lindholm P, et al. Neurotransmitters behind pain relief with transcranial magnetic stimulation - positron emission tomography evidence for release of endogenous opioids. Eur J Pain. 2017 May 11.
[14] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Ménard-Lefaucheur I, et al. Neuropathic pain controlled for more than a year by monthly sessions of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation of the motor cortex. Neurophysiol Clin. 2004 Apr;34(2):91-5.
[15] Ma SM, Ni JX, Li XY. et al. High-Frequency Repetitive Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Reduces Pain in Postherpetic Neuralgia. Pain Med. 2015 Nov;16(11):2162-70.
[16] Shehata HS, Esmail EH, Abdelalim A, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus botulinum toxin injection in chronic migraine prophylaxis: a pilot randomized trial. J Pain Res. 2016 Oct 7;9:771-777.
[17] Lefaucheur JP, Drouot X, Menard-Lefaucheur I et al. (April 2004) Neurogenic pain relief by repetitive transcranial magnetic cortical stimulation depends on the origin and the site of pain. J Neurol Neurosurg Psychiatr 75(4): 612–616.
[18] Picarelli H, Teixeira MJ, de Andrade DC et al. (November 2010) Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is efficacious as an add-on to pharmacological therapy in complex regional pain syndrome (CRPS) type I. J Pain 11(11): 1203–1210.
[19] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[20] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[21] Wang M, Li Y, Feng L, Zhang X, Wang H, Zhang N, Viohl I, Li G. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Enhances Healing of a Meniscal Tear and Mitigates Posttraumatic Osteoarthritis in a Rat Model. Am J Sports Med. 2022 Aug;50(10):2722-2732.
[22] Li Y, Yang Y, Wang M, Zhang X, Bai S, Lu X, Li Y, Waldorff EI, Zhang N, Lee WY, Li G. High slew rate pulsed electromagnetic field enhances bone consolidation and shortens daily treatment duration in distraction osteogenesis. Bone Joint Res. 2021 Dec;10(12):767-779
[23] Li, Yucong & Qi, Pan & Zhang, Nianli & Wang, Bin & Yang, Zhengmeng & Ryaby, James & Waldorff, Erik & Lee, Wayne & Li, Gang. (2020). A novel pulsed electromagnetic field promotes distraction osteogenesis via enhancing osteogenesis and angiogenesis in a rat model. Journal of Orthopaedic Translation. 25. 10.1016/j.jot.2020.10.007.
[24] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[25] Smith, T.L., Wong-Gibbons, D. and Maultsby, J. (2004), Microcirculatory effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields. J. Orthop. Res., 22: 80-84.
[26] Spadaro, J.A. & Bergstrom, W.H.. (2002). In Vivo and In Vitro Effects of a Pulsed Electromagnetic Field on Net Calcium Flux in Rat Calvarial Bone. Calcified tissue international. 70. 496-502. 10.1007/s00223-001-1001-6.
[27] Tucker, J.J., Cirone, J.M., Morris, T.R., Nuss, C.A., Huegel, J., Waldorff, E.I., Zhang, N., Ryaby, J.T. and Soslowsky, L.J. (2017), Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy improves tendon-to-bone healing in a rat rotator cuff repair model. J. Orthop. Res., 35: 902-909
[28] Parate, D., Franco-Obregón, A., Fröhlich, J. et al. Enhancement of mesenchymal stem cell chondrogenesis with short-term low intensity pulsed electromagnetic fields. Sci Rep 7, 9421 (2017).
[29] Craig Jun Kit Wong, Yee Kit Tai, Jasmine Lye Yee Yap, Charlene Hui Hua Fong, Larry Sai Weng Loo, Marek Kukumberg, Jürg Fröhlich, Sitong Zhang, Jing Ze Li, Jiong-Wei Wang, Abdul Jalil Rufaihah, Alfredo Franco-Obregón, Brief exposure to directionally-specific pulsed electromagnetic fields stimulates extracellular vesicle release and is antagonized by streptomycin: A potential regenerative medicine and food industry paradigm,Biomaterials, Volume 287, 2022, 121658, ISSN 0142-9612
[30] Parate, D., Kadir, N.D., Celik, C. et al. Pulsed electromagnetic fields potentiate the paracrine function of mesenchymal stem cells for cartilage regeneration. Stem Cell Res Ther 11, 46 (2020).
[31] Sisken, Betty. (2021). Enhancement of Nerve Regeneration by Selected Electromagnetic Signals.
[32] Crocetti S, Beyer C, Schade G, Egli M, Fröhlich J, Franco-Obregón A. Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability. PLoS One. 2013 Sep 11;8(9):e72944
[33] Dallari D, Fini M, Giavaresi G, Del Piccolo N, Stagni C, Amendola L, Rani N, Gnudi S, Giardino R. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic stimulation on patients undergoing hip revision prostheses: a randomized prospective double-blind study. Bioelectromagnetics. 2009 Sep;30(6):423-30.
[34] Martino CF, Belchenko D, Ferguson V, Nielsen-Preiss S, Qi HJ. The effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on the cellular activity of SaOS-2 cells. Bioelectromagnetics. 2008 Feb;29(2):125-32.
[35] Cheing, G. L., et al. «Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy increases tensile strength in the healing of rotator cuff repair: a prospective randomized double-blinded study.» Journal of Orthopaedic Surgery and Research, vol. 13, no. 2018 ,1, pp. 47g
[36] Binder A, Parr G, Hazleman B, Fitton-Jackson S. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis. A double-blind controlled assessment. Lancet. 1984;1(8379):695–8.
[37] Jin Y, Phillips B. A pilot study of the use of EEG-based synchronized Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation (sTMS) for treatment of Major Depression. BMC Psychiatry. 2014 Jan 18;14:13.
[38] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dOBOhuqzdBhZOAANnvT_2KCFWAdNxNc1WloU33_KRKM
Chapter 7 References
[1] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[2] Wang KW , Hladky SB . An upper limit for the effect of low frequency magnetic fields on ATP - sensitive potassium channels . Biochim Biophys Acta . 1994 ; 1195 : 218–222
[3] Zorzi C, Dall'Oca C, Cadossi R, Setti S. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on patients' recovery after arthroscopic surgery: prospective, randomized and double-blind study. Knee Surg Sports Traumatol Arthrosc. 2007 Jul;15(7):830-4. Notes: 1.5 mT (15 Gauss) worked better long term pain relief on arthroscopic treatment of knee cartilage than .05 mT or 50 uT (.5 Gauss) control. 90 day 6 hrs per day. 3 year followup, the percentage of those completely recovered was higher in the active group!
[4] de Kleijn S, Bouwens M, Verburg-van Kemenade BM, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic field exposure does not modulate toll-like receptor signaling in human peripheral blood mononuclear cells. Cytokine. 2011 Apr;54(1):43-50. Notes: Low intensity PEMF does not affect pro-inflammatory cytokines while 1.5 mT does
[5] Dennis R. Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 2: Optimization of parameters for orthopedic injuries and pain. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2020; 1(2)DOI
[6] Caroline Androjna, Cristal S. Yee, Carter R. White, Erik I. Waldorff, James T. Ryaby, Maciej Zborowski, Tamara Alliston, Ronald J. Midura, A comparison of alendronate to varying magnitude PEMF in mitigating bone loss and altering bone remodeling in skeletally mature osteoporotic rats, Bone, Volume 143, 2021,115761, ISSN 8756-3282.
[7] Hubbard, Devin. (2020). Electroceutical Technology: Anti-Inflammatory Effects Of 40-160 T/S Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation (ICES) In The Acute Inflammation Model. The Journal of Science and Medicine. 2. 1-50. 10.37714/josam.v2i2.38
[8] Meyers, B. PEMF, The 5th element of health. Balboa Press 2013.
[9] Dennis R, Tommerdahl A, Dennis A. (2020). Inductively Coupled Electrical Stimulation - Part 4: Effect of PEMF on seed germination; evidence of triphasic inverse hormesis. Journal of Science and Medicine; 3(1):144. https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/58
[10] Massari L, Benazzo F, De Mattei M, Setti S, Fini M; CRES Study Group. Effects of electrical physical stimuli on articular cartilage. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2007 Oct;89 Suppl 3:152-61.
[11] Palmer S, Rycroft M, Cermack M. Solar and geomagnetic activity, extremely low frequency magnetic and electric fields and human health at Earth’s surface. Surv Geophys 2006;27:557–95.
[12] Cherry NJ. Human intelligence: The brain, an electromagnetic system synchronized by the Schumann Resonance signal. Med Hypoth 2003;60:843–4.
[13] Seal, J. Signal Design Step by Step Magnetic Fields in Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine (pp.86-88). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov Duplicates removed
Chapter 8 References
[1] Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 1979, 109: 273-284.
[2] Guo H, Kang L, Qin W, Li Y. Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure and Childhood Leukemia: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Altern Ther Health Med. 2023 Nov;29(8):75-81. PMID: 37678874.
[3] Ghahremani, S., Shiroudbakhshi, K., Salimi Kordasiabi, A. H., FiroozBakht, M., Hosseinzadegan, M., Ashrafinia, F., Rahafard, S. (2020). 'Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukemia: An Overview of Meta-Analysis', International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(5), pp. 11361-11365
[4] Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(11):906-15
[5] Brabant C, Geerinck A, Beaudart C, Tirelli E, Geuzaine C, Bruyère O. Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Mar 15;38(2):229-253.
[6] Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, Li S, et al. Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leukemia research. 2014;38(3):269-74.
[7] Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, Dockerty J, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British journal of cancer. 2000;83(5):692-8.
[8] Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, Lowenthal RM, Mezei G, Oksuzyan S, Schüz J, Swanson J, Tittarelli A, Vinceti M, Wunsch Filho V. Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer. 2010 Sep 28;103(7):1128-35
[9] Michaelis, J., H. Schuz, R. Meiner, E. Zenmann, J.-P. Grigat, P. Kaatsch, U. Kaletsch, A. Miesner, K. Brinkmann, W. Kalkner and H. Karner. 1998. Combined risk estimates for two German population-based case-control studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood acute leukemia. Epidemiology 9:92-94.
[10] Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, Robison LL, Kaune WT, Friedman DR, Severson RK, Haines CM, Hartsock CT, Niwa S, Wacholder S, Tarone RE. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 3;337(1):1-7.
[11] Wertheimer N, Savitz DA, Leeper E. Childhood cancer in relation to indicators of magnetic fields from ground current sources. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(2):86-96
[12] jstor.orgc
[13] 60 Hz unhealthy because if can cause fibrillation https://jmkengineering.com/electric-shock-human-body
[14] Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 2004b; 112:687- 94.
[15] Report on Travel to Almaty, Kazakhstan to attend the International Conference: "Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health" September 4-12, 2003 by Karl Maret, M.D., M.Eng. on behalf of the Foundation for Alternative Medicine, Washington, D.C. Specially Note section - Yuri Grigoriev : "EMF as a Risk Factor for the Population's Health (Current State of the Problem)”.
[16] Johansson, Olle. (2006). Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment. Electromagnetic biology and medicine. 25. 245-58
[17] Beale IL and Pearce NE. Psychological and physical health correlates of 50 hz magnetic field exposure in humans living near extra-high-voltage transmission lines. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. 20-1, p. 87, 1995.
[18] Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of a melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. 1999;266:209–212.
[19] Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;(Suppl 7):S86–97.
[20] Stevens RG. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:135–40
Melatonin Receptor Disrupted by EMF
[21] Girgert R, Hanf V, Emons G, Gründker C. Signal transduction of the melatonin receptor MT1 is disrupted in breast cancer cells by electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:237–45
[22] Havas M, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity and electrical hypersensitivity: Five case studies. World Health Organization Workshop on Electrical Hypersensitivity. 25–26 October, Prague, Czech Republic; 2004, available online at: http:/
/www.stetzerelectric.com/filters/research/havas_stetzer_ who04.pdf
[23] Levallois, P. 2002. Hypersensitivity of human subjects to environmental electric and magnetic field exposure: A review of the literature. Environmental Health Perspectives Vol. 110:613-618.
[24] Levallois, P. 1999. Study Review of Hypersensitivity of Human Subjects to Environmental Electric and Magnetic Field Exposure. Report to The Public Health Institute and the California Department of Health Services.
[25] Armstrong B, Theriault G, Guenel P, Deadman J, Goldberg M, Heroux P. Association between exposure to pulsed electromagnetic fields and cancer in electric utility workers in Quebec, Canada, and France. Am J Epidemiol 1994;140(9):805–20.
[26] Milham S, Ossiander EM. Historical evidence that residential electrification caused the emergence of the childhood leukemia peak. Med Hypoth 2001;56(3):290–5.
[27] Westman JA, Ferketich KA, Kauffman RM et al. Low cancer incidence rates in Ohio Amish. Cancer Causes Control
2010;21:69–75.
[28] La Quinta Middle School Cancer Cluster Report by Dr. Sam Milham and Lloyd Morgan indicates strong evidence of a relationship between power quality and cancer.
[29] Medical Alert - "An Ounce of Prevention is Worth a Pound of Cure" - Leukemia and Diabetes Increase with Electrical Exposure (EMF), October 26, 2004
[30] Exposure to Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Linked to Neuro-Endocrine Stress Syndrome: Increased Cardiovascular Disease, Diabetes, & Cancer, November 2005
[31] Milham S, Morgan LL. A new electromagnetic field exposure metric: High frequency voltage transients associated with increased cancer incidence in teachers in a California school. Am J Ind Med 2008;51(8):579–86.
[32] Reynolds P, Elkin EP, Layefsky ME, Lee JM. Cancer in California school employees. Am J Ind Med 1999;36:271.
[33] Milham S. Historical evidence that electrification caused the 20th century epidemic of diseases of civilization. Med Hypoth 2010;74(2):337–45.
[34] Dode AC et al. Mortality by neoplasia and cellular telephone base stations in the Belo Horizonte municipality, Minas Gerais state, Brazil. Sci Total Environ 2011;409(19):3649–65.
[35] Milham S, Stetzer D. Dirty electricity, chronic stress, neurotransmitters and disease. Electromagn Biol Med. 2013 Dec;32(4):500-7.
[36] Milham S. Evidence that dirty electricity is causing the world- wide epidemics of obesity and diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med 2013;33(1):75–8.
[37] Havas, M. (2006b). Electromagnetic hypersensitivity: Biological effects of dirty electricity with emphasis on diabetes and multiple sclerosis. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine, 25, 259-268.
[38] Havas M. Dirty electricity elevates blood sugar among electrically sensitive diabetics and may explain brittle diabetes. Electromagn Biol Med. 2008;27(2):135-46
[39] Li DK, Chen H, Odouli R. Maternal exposure to magnetic fields during pregnancy in relation to the risk of asthma in offspring. Arch Pediatr Adolesc Med 2011;165:945–50.
[40] Li DK, Ferber J, Odouli R et al. Prospective study of in-utero exposure to magnetic fields and the risk of childhood obesity. Sci Rep 2012, doi:10.1038/srep00540.
[41] Havas M, Colling D. Wind turbines make waves: Why some resident near wind turbines become ill. Bull Sci, Technol Soc 2011;31(5):414–26.
[42] Havas, M., & Olstad, A. (2008). Power quality affects teacher wellbeing and student behavior in three Minnesota Schools. Science of the Total Environment, 402, 157-162.
[43] Havas, M., Illiatovitch, M., & Proctor, C. (2004, October). Teacher and student response to the removal of dirty electricity by the Graham/Stetzer filter at Willow Wood school in Toronto, Canada. Paper presented at the 3rd International Workshop on Biological Effects of EMFs, Kos, Greece.
[44] Legislative Alert! Uncontrolled Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) in Homes, Schools, and Workplaces Cause Increased Heart Rate, High Blood Pressure, and Cardiovascular Disease in Michigan. You Can Do Something about Control of Electric Power Quality and Disease., April 2006
[45] Pall ML. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug;17(8):958-65. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088. Epub 2013 Jun 26
[46] New Discoveries - Dirty Electrical Power Affects Cows, September 11, 2002
[47] Electric and Magnetic Fields (EMF) Affect Milk Production and Behavior of Cows; Results Using Shielded Neutral Isolation Transformer, July 2004
[48] Effects of Excessive Electrical Exposure on Human and Animal Health, Special Edition for Ingham County Farm Bureau, September 13, 2007
[49] "The Health Effects of Electrical Pollution" published by the National Foundation for Alternative Medicine.
[50] A report to the Scientific Committee on Emerging and Newly Identified Health Risks (SCENIHR) made on June 5, 2008 by Dr. Magda Havas. The report is titled "Health Concerns associated with Energy Efficient Lighting and their Electromagnetic Emissions."
[51] Appeal to Fellow Citizens -- Help Remove Cancer-Promoting EMFs From Powerlines, Homes, Schools, and Workplaces, March 7, 2004
[52] Electric Transmission Lines: Individual Rights vs. Utility Rights of Public Domain, January 10, 2005
[53] Magnetic Fields in Homes and School: Source and Mitigation in Our Home, May 2005
[54] Legislative Letter To Members of the Michigan House of Representatives, Michigan Senate, and Adminstrative Officers, April 2006
[55] microwavesnews.com
[56] iarc.fr
[57] Discussion between Lloyd Burrell and Girish Kumar, PhD, from the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay, as part of ElectricSense.com's EMF Experts Solutions Club. See IARC's official website which now talks about "cellphone radiation might cause cancer": who.int/mediacentre/factsheets/fs193/en/
[58] npic.orst.edu
[59] microwavesnews.com
[60] https://ntp.niehs.nih.gov/whatwestudy/topics/cellphones
[61] https://bioinitiative.org/
[62] Henrietta Nittby; "Radiofrequency and extremely low frequency effects on the blood-brain barrier"; Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine; Volume 27, 2008 Neil Cherry; "EMF/EMR Reduces Melatonin" July 26, 2000. www.feb.se
[63] Hyla Cass, M.D.; "Are Cell Phones and Wi-Fi Hazardous to Your Health?" October 13, 2010, www.huffingtonpost.com
[64] Conrado Avendano et al., "Use of laptop computers connected to internet through WiFi decreases sperm motility and increases sperm DNA fragmentation"; Fertility and Sterility Vol. 97, No. 1, January 2012
[65] Singh S, Khanduja KL, Mittal PK. Influence of 50 Hz sinusoidal electromagnetic field on hepatic and pulmonary phase I and II drug metabolizing enzymes in mice. Electro Magnetobiol 17 (3): 343-350, 1998.
[66] George, I., Geddis, M.S., Lill, Z., Lin, H., Gomez, T., Blank, M., Oz, M.C., and Goodman, R. (2008). Myocardial function improved by electromagnetic field induction of stress protein hsp70. J Cell Physiol 216, 816–823.
[67] Blank M, Goodman R. 2004. Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced interactions. J Cell Physiol 199: 359–363.
[68] Chen Y, Hong L, Zeng Y, et al. Power frequency magnetic fields induced reactive oxygen species-related autophagy in mouse embryonic fibroblasts. Int J Biochem Cell Biol. 2014 Dec;57:108-14.
[69] Del Re B, Bersani F, Mesirca P, et al. Synthesis of DnaK we have helped and GroEL in Escherichia coli cells exposed to different magnetic field signals. Bioelectrochemistry. 2006 Sep;69(1):99-103.
[70] https://magdahavas.com/health-issues/dr-oz-on-pemf-therapy-and-pain-control/
[71] Cell Phone Radiation: The Shocking Truth Behind the Convenience https://www.rfsafe.com/articles/cell-phone-radiation/cell-phone-radiation-the-shocking-truth-behind-the-convenience.html
Chapter 9 References
[1] https://zhcoils.com/functions-of-ferrite-rod-inductor-coils/
Chapter 10 References
[1] Beale IL and Pearce NE. Psychological and physical health correlates of 50 hz magnetic field exposure in humans living near extra-high-voltage transmission lines. Bioelectromagnetics Society, 17th Annual Meeting, 18-22 June, Boston, MA, Abstract No. 20-1, p. 87, 1995.
[2] ncbi.nlm.nih.gov
[3] jstor.orgc
[4] Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of a melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. 1999;266:209–212.
[5] Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;(Suppl 7):S86–97.
[6] Stevens RG. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:135–40
Melatonin Receptor Disrupted by EMF
[7] Girgert R, Hanf V, Emons G, Gründker C. Signal transduction of the melatonin receptor MT1 is disrupted in breast cancer cells by electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:237–45
[8] 60 Hz unhealthy because if can cause fibrillation https://jmkengineering.com/electric-shock-human-body
[9] Wertheimer N, Leeper E. Electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. American journal of epidemiology, 1979, 109: 273-284.
[10] Lai H, Singh NP. Magnetic-field-induced DNA strand breaks in brain cells of the rat. Environ Health Perspect 2004b; 112:687- 94.
[11] Guo H, Kang L, Qin W, Li Y. Electromagnetic Radiation Exposure and Childhood Leukemia: Meta-Analysis and Systematic Review. Altern Ther Health Med. 2023 Nov;29(8):75-81. PMID: 37678874.
[12] Ghahremani, S., Shiroudbakhshi, K., Salimi Kordasiabi, A. H., FiroozBakht, M., Hosseinzadegan, M., Ashrafinia, F., Rahafard, S. (2020). 'Exposure to Magnetic Fields and Childhood Leukemia: An Overview of Meta-Analysis', International Journal of Pediatrics, 8(5), pp. 11361-11365
[13] Angelillo IF, Villari P. Residential exposure to electromagnetic fields and childhood leukaemia: a meta-analysis. Bull World Health Organ. 1999;77(11):906-15
[14] Brabant C, Geerinck A, Beaudart C, Tirelli E, Geuzaine C, Bruyère O. Exposure to magnetic fields and childhood leukemia: a systematic review and meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Rev Environ Health. 2022 Mar 15;38(2):229-253.
[15] Zhao L, Liu X, Wang C, Yan K, Lin X, Li S, et al. Magnetic fields exposure and childhood leukemia risk: a meta-analysis based on 11,699 cases and 13,194 controls. Leukemia research. 2014;38(3):269-74.
[16] Ahlbom A, Day N, Feychting M, Roman E, Skinner J, Dockerty J, et al. A pooled analysis of magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. British journal of cancer. 2000;83(5):692-8.
[17] Kheifets L, Ahlbom A, Crespi CM, Draper G, Hagihara J, Lowenthal RM, Mezei G, Oksuzyan S, Schüz J, Swanson J, Tittarelli A, Vinceti M, Wunsch Filho V. Pooled analysis of recent studies on magnetic fields and childhood leukaemia. Br J Cancer. 2010 Sep 28;103(7):1128-35
[18] Michaelis, J., H. Schuz, R. Meiner, E. Zenmann, J.-P. Grigat, P. Kaatsch, U. Kaletsch, A. Miesner, K. Brinkmann, W. Kalkner and H. Karner. 1998. Combined risk estimates for two German population-based case-control studies on residential magnetic fields and childhood acute leukemia. Epidemiology 9:92-94.
[19] Linet MS, Hatch EE, Kleinerman RA, Robison LL, Kaune WT, Friedman DR, Severson RK, Haines CM, Hartsock CT, Niwa S, Wacholder S, Tarone RE. Residential exposure to magnetic fields and acute lymphoblastic leukemia in children. N Engl J Med. 1997 Jul 3;337(1):1-7.
[20] Report on Travel to Almaty, Kazakhstan to attend the International Conference: "Electromagnetic Fields and Human Health" September 4-12, 2003 by Karl Maret, M.D., M.Eng. on behalf of the Foundation for Alternative Medicine, Washington, D.C. Specially Note section - Yuri Grigoriev : "EMF as a Risk Factor for the Population's Health (Current State of the Problem)”.
[21] Johansson, Olle. (2006). Electrohypersensitivity: State-of-the-Art of a Functional Impairment. Electromagnetic biology and medicine. 25. 245-58
[22] Wertheimer N, Savitz DA, Leeper E. Childhood cancer in relation to indicators of magnetic fields from ground current sources. Bioelectromagnetics. 1995;16(2):86-96
[23] https://youtu.be/Lm-coRuD_NA?si=qHBmRo7SByel9H3z
[24] Weaver JC, Astumian RD. The response of living cells to very weak electric fields: the thermal noise limit. Science. 1990 Jan 26;247(4941):459-62
[25] Burch JB, Reif JS, Yost MG. Geomagnetic disturbances are associated with reduced nocturnal excretion of a melatonin metabolite in humans. Neurosci Lett. 1999;266:209–212.
[26] Henshaw DL, Reiter RJ. Do magnetic fields cause increased risk of childhood leukemia via melatonin disruption? Bioelectromagnetics. 2005;(Suppl 7):S86–97.
[27] Stevens RG. The melatonin hypothesis: electric power and breast cancer. Environ Health Perspect. 1996;104:135–40
Melatonin Receptor Disrupted by EMF
[28] Girgert R, Hanf V, Emons G, Gründker C. Signal transduction of the melatonin receptor MT1 is disrupted in breast cancer cells by electromagnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2010;31:237–45
[29] A. P. Castano et al., “Low-level laser therapy for zymosan-induced arthritis in rats: Importance of illumination time,” Lasers Surgery Med. 39(6), 543–550 (2007).
[30] R. J. Lanzafame et al., “Reciprocity of exposure time and irradiance on energy density during photoradiation on wound healing in a murine pressure ulcer model,” Lasers Surgery Med. 39(6), 534–542 (2007).
[31] J. T. Hashmi et al., “Effect of Pulsing in Low-Level Light Therapy,” Lasers Surgery Med. 42(6), 450–466 (2010).
[32] Abel EL, Hendrix SL, McNeeley GS, O'Leary ES, Mossavar-Rahmani Y, Johnson SR, Kruger M. Use of electric blankets and association with prevalence of endometrial cancer. Eur J Cancer Prev. 2007 Jun;16(3):243-50
[33] Blank, Martin. Overpowered: The Dangers of Electromagnetic Radiation (EMF) and What You Can Do about It. Seven Stories Press; Illustrated edition (September 29, 2015)
[34] Seal, J. Signal Design Step by Step Magnetic Fields in Electromagnetic Fields in Biology and Medicine (pp.86-88). Publisher: CRC PressEditors: Marko Markov Duplicates removed
Chapter 11
None
Conclusion
[1] Mansourian M, Shanei A. Evaluation of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Effects: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis on Highlights of Two Decades of Research In Vitro Studies. Biomed Res Int. 2021 Jul 29;2021:6647497.
[2] Massari, L.; Benazzo, F.; Moretti, B.; Dallari, D.; Perugia, D.; Meani, E.; Cadossi, R. Electrical Stimulation of Osteogenesis: Efficacy and Technologies Compared. GIOT 2011, 6, 1–8.
[3] Data from above study [3] was partially communicated at the congress: 2nd Trauma Meeting, Milano Marittima, 15-17 October 2009 (Ravazzani P. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields for bone regeneration: analysis of existing technology and distribution of the magnetic field).