Dr Pawluk's High Intensity Myths ... EXPOSED!
Don't Buy a High Intensity PEMF Until You See This!
Don't Buy a High Intensity PEMF Until You See This!
Dr. Pawluk is widely recognized as a leading authority on PEMF therapy. To give credit where credit is due, I have gained significant knowledge about PEMF therapy from his work over the years. And I still do, he has a LOT of incredibly valuable PEMF information. Nevertheless, his current recommendations for high-intensity PEMF are based on several instances of flawed science and research, some of which directly contradict his own advice.
Dr. Pawluk's strong promotion of high-intensity PEMF—evident in his best-selling books and frequent appearances on podcasts, interviews, and conferences—requires a critical examination of his reliance on flawed science and misleading citations of PEMF research.
My commitment is to present the most accurate information on PEMF, as supported by current research and scientific evidence. I put in a lot of time and effort to ensure this page is accurate, but if any errors are identified in this section, including by Dr. Pawluk himself, I will promptly correct them.
Dr. Pawluk repeats over and over, "you need more gauss (or intensity)", "ask the manufacturer what the gauss is", and on and on. I have heard him say, "Gauss is like the horsepower of a car, would you buy a car without knowing what the horsepower is?" But if you have hopefully read my 2026 buyers' guide (or soon-to-be-published book), the horsepower of a PEMF system is NOT the gauss; it is Faraday induction (slew rate) that dictates how much energy, power, and healing are transferred from the PEMF device to the body. This is physics, this is a fact!
Dr. Pawluk claims gauss or intensity is the most important parameter in PEMF, but according to whom? On page 13 of his book Power Tools for Health, he states, "Research evidence continually and consistently shows that intensity of a therapeutic magnetic field is important, perhaps more important than any other component"[1]. If you look up the reference, he cites himself in his own paper, in a chapter in the book called "Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics."
If you're considering high-intensity PEMF because of Dr. Pawluk, don't buy until you read this page all the way through, because as you'll see, there is very little justification for spending over $8000-$10,000 on a high-intensity PEMF for daily home use[1]. High-slew-rate, medium-intensity full-body PEMF devices are available for around $3000-$6000 and are both safer for daily use and more effective for healing when we use research as a guide!
In the remainder of this page, I will first provide a brief summary (Cliff's Notes version) of the 3 main errors in Dr. Pawluk's high-intensity recommendations, which may be sufficient for many readers. Then, after this brief summary - for those who would like to see further evidence - we'll take a deep dive into Dr. Pawluk's myths about needing high intensity and debunk them in detail one by one. My hope is that you will solidify your desire for a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF device, AND perhaps learn some cool physics along the way!
[1] Again, as we emphasized in Chapters 5 and 6, High Intensity PEMF certainly has a place in a clinical setting, but this book is a buyers' guide for finding the best PEMF device for daily home use.
Dr. Pawluk's strong promotion of high-intensity PEMF—evident in his best-selling books and frequent appearances on podcasts, interviews, and conferences—requires a critical examination of his reliance on flawed science and misleading citations of PEMF research.
My commitment is to present the most accurate information on PEMF, as supported by current research and scientific evidence. I put in a lot of time and effort to ensure this page is accurate, but if any errors are identified in this section, including by Dr. Pawluk himself, I will promptly correct them.
Dr. Pawluk repeats over and over, "you need more gauss (or intensity)", "ask the manufacturer what the gauss is", and on and on. I have heard him say, "Gauss is like the horsepower of a car, would you buy a car without knowing what the horsepower is?" But if you have hopefully read my 2026 buyers' guide (or soon-to-be-published book), the horsepower of a PEMF system is NOT the gauss; it is Faraday induction (slew rate) that dictates how much energy, power, and healing are transferred from the PEMF device to the body. This is physics, this is a fact!
Dr. Pawluk claims gauss or intensity is the most important parameter in PEMF, but according to whom? On page 13 of his book Power Tools for Health, he states, "Research evidence continually and consistently shows that intensity of a therapeutic magnetic field is important, perhaps more important than any other component"[1]. If you look up the reference, he cites himself in his own paper, in a chapter in the book called "Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics."
If you're considering high-intensity PEMF because of Dr. Pawluk, don't buy until you read this page all the way through, because as you'll see, there is very little justification for spending over $8000-$10,000 on a high-intensity PEMF for daily home use[1]. High-slew-rate, medium-intensity full-body PEMF devices are available for around $3000-$6000 and are both safer for daily use and more effective for healing when we use research as a guide!
In the remainder of this page, I will first provide a brief summary (Cliff's Notes version) of the 3 main errors in Dr. Pawluk's high-intensity recommendations, which may be sufficient for many readers. Then, after this brief summary - for those who would like to see further evidence - we'll take a deep dive into Dr. Pawluk's myths about needing high intensity and debunk them in detail one by one. My hope is that you will solidify your desire for a medium-intensity, high-slew-rate PEMF device, AND perhaps learn some cool physics along the way!
[1] Again, as we emphasized in Chapters 5 and 6, High Intensity PEMF certainly has a place in a clinical setting, but this book is a buyers' guide for finding the best PEMF device for daily home use.
The 3 Main Errors in Dr. Pawluk's High Intensity Recommendations (Summary)
Part 1 - Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square LAW Mistake: The significant issue is that Dr. Pawluk incorrectly applies the inverse square law and creates erroneous tables to justify the need for high intensity to penetrate PEMF into the body. He incorrectly claims that, because of the inverse-square law, higher-intensity PEMF devices are required to penetrate deeper tissues. The problem is that the inverse square law only applies to point sources, and most PEMF coils are not even remotely close to point sources! Dr. Pawluk does not understand that the Biot-Savart Law—the correct equation—shows that, with larger coils, low- and medium-intensity PEMF penetrates much deeper than his incredibly inaccurate inverse-square table. Additionally, from the correct Biot-Savart equation, we see that differently sized coils fall off differently (so you would need a separate table for each size). And his errors are not minor, for example, a 16-inch coil at 5 inches away has 10,000% more intensity than Dr. Pawluk's tables dictate (see Figure 122). That is a huge mistake!
Part 1 - Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square LAW Mistake: The significant issue is that Dr. Pawluk incorrectly applies the inverse square law and creates erroneous tables to justify the need for high intensity to penetrate PEMF into the body. He incorrectly claims that, because of the inverse-square law, higher-intensity PEMF devices are required to penetrate deeper tissues. The problem is that the inverse square law only applies to point sources, and most PEMF coils are not even remotely close to point sources! Dr. Pawluk does not understand that the Biot-Savart Law—the correct equation—shows that, with larger coils, low- and medium-intensity PEMF penetrates much deeper than his incredibly inaccurate inverse-square table. Additionally, from the correct Biot-Savart equation, we see that differently sized coils fall off differently (so you would need a separate table for each size). And his errors are not minor, for example, a 16-inch coil at 5 inches away has 10,000% more intensity than Dr. Pawluk's tables dictate (see Figure 122). That is a huge mistake!
Part 2 - The 15 Gauss Study That Is the Source of Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square Law Prescriptions: Dr. Pawluk misapplies his incorrect inverse Square Law tables to an excellent study on inflammation by Massari L, Benazzo F, and De Mattei [2], and concocts his own ad hoc prescription for intensity based on getting 15 gauss a certain distance into the body, depending on the body part, disease, or condition. 15 Gauss was found to be the optimal intensity to turn off inflammation in the study. Firstly, the study itself used 15 gauss AT THE SURFACE, already debunking Dr. Pawluk's prescription. To further expose Dr. Pawluk's faulty PEMF prescription, I calculated AND measured the magnetic field drop-offs from a 29-gauss, 10.5-inch PEMF coil. My actual measurements with a Hall effect probe (the proper way to measure intensity) matched my Biot-Savart Law calculations almost perfectly! Dr. Pawluk only has his flawed calculations, with no measurements to back them up. What was interesting to me was that the 29 gauss - 10.5-inch loop - 4 inches up was still 15 gauss, matching the Massari Study, which is the basis for all of Dr. Pawluk's recommendations in his book SuperCharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. That is, even by following Dr. Pawluk's own misguided prescription, we find that medium intensity does the job! This decisively debunks Dr. Pawluk's claims because his charts suggest you need 1820 gauss to get 15 gauss 4 inches into the body! In this example, you need approximately 6000% LESS than Dr. Pawluk recommends!
Part 3 - Dr. Pawluk's Own Citations from All His Books, eBooks, and Contributing Chapters Support Low and Medium Intensity: I spent a solid month reviewing all Dr. Pawluk's citations and summarizing them by intensity and the conditions treated. Of the studies that were actual PEMF studies, only 17% were High Intensity. When you take the rTMS studies out, it is only 5%! Most of Dr. Pawluks' own citations are low- or medium-intensity[1], including his own study on TBI (traumatic brain injury), which was medium intensity (10 gauss), and his study on knee osteoarthritis, which was low intensity! Also, note that the medium- and low-intensity studies (especially the medium) had a LOT more evidence of actual healing and regeneration than the high-intensity studies.
That is a brief overview to give you the big picture. If that is enough, then great! But if you need more convincing, follow me, and we will take a deeper dive and a more careful look at these 3 fatal errors in Dr. Pawluk's flawed prescription for high intensity.
[1] I created an online spreadsheet of all of Dr Pawluk's citations at this link: https://bit.ly/4mBTXPx
That is a brief overview to give you the big picture. If that is enough, then great! But if you need more convincing, follow me, and we will take a deeper dive and a more careful look at these 3 fatal errors in Dr. Pawluk's flawed prescription for high intensity.
[1] I created an online spreadsheet of all of Dr Pawluk's citations at this link: https://bit.ly/4mBTXPx
DETAILED SUPPORTING EVIDENCE OF THESE 3 POINTS
Part 1 - Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square "FLAW"
The Inverse Square FLaw tables, which Dr. Pawluk cites in all his books, ebooks, contributing chapters, videos, podcasts, and recommendations, are from an erroneous table that he admits that he concocted. But where did he get these tables from? Certainly not a physics book, as the table itself is riddled with errors (which is why I use "FLaw" instead of Law). On page 373 in a chapter Dr Pawluk contributed to the book Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics, he states [16]:
"On the basis of the inverse square rule, various field intensities have been calculated by the author[1] at various depths or distances away from the magnetic applicator source."
This is important because he is not getting this table from a reputable source; rather, he admits in this contributing chapter that HE HIMSELF is the source of all his wildly inaccurate inverse-square flaw tables (see Figure 116), which are ubiquitous throughout his entire PEMF educational platforms, most notably both of his books Power Tools for Health page 13 and Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy page 139 [1,3].
But where did he get the idea to use the inverse square law in the first place? The same chapter in Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics [16] points to www.nde-ed.org, where we find the inverse square law applied to X-rays! In all fairness, Dr Pawluk is a medical doctor, not a physicist, and indeed the usual application of the inverse-square law in medicine is in X-ray imaging. However, the essential prerequisite to use the inverse square law is that the source of energy, light, radiation, sound, etc., must be approximated as a point source. X-ray radiation is generated at the focal spot of an X-ray tube, a very small area. Point sources can be approximated with radiation when the source is far enough away AND small enough, which IS the case with most X-ray machines (refer to the figure below). That is, for the inverse-square law to hold, the distance from the source needs to be significantly greater than the source's size, as with X-ray machines. With PEMF devices, you are lying directly on the source of the magnetic field - the coils - so this most certainly DOES NOT apply! It's actually the opposite, in that the size of PEMF coils (the source) is much bigger than the distance away, since you lie directly on the coils! As a result, when Dr. Pawluk incorrectly applies the inverse-square law to large PEMF coils, errors can exceed 10,000%. This fundamental misunderstanding of the inverse-square law is the crux of Dr. Pawluk's erroneous high-intensity PEMF recommendations! As we'll see next, it gets even worse: not only is Dr Pawluk using the wrong equation, but he does not even apply it correctly!
[1] The Author is Dr. Pawluk
The Inverse Square FLaw tables, which Dr. Pawluk cites in all his books, ebooks, contributing chapters, videos, podcasts, and recommendations, are from an erroneous table that he admits that he concocted. But where did he get these tables from? Certainly not a physics book, as the table itself is riddled with errors (which is why I use "FLaw" instead of Law). On page 373 in a chapter Dr Pawluk contributed to the book Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics, he states [16]:
"On the basis of the inverse square rule, various field intensities have been calculated by the author[1] at various depths or distances away from the magnetic applicator source."
This is important because he is not getting this table from a reputable source; rather, he admits in this contributing chapter that HE HIMSELF is the source of all his wildly inaccurate inverse-square flaw tables (see Figure 116), which are ubiquitous throughout his entire PEMF educational platforms, most notably both of his books Power Tools for Health page 13 and Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy page 139 [1,3].
But where did he get the idea to use the inverse square law in the first place? The same chapter in Dosimetry in Bioelectromagnetics [16] points to www.nde-ed.org, where we find the inverse square law applied to X-rays! In all fairness, Dr Pawluk is a medical doctor, not a physicist, and indeed the usual application of the inverse-square law in medicine is in X-ray imaging. However, the essential prerequisite to use the inverse square law is that the source of energy, light, radiation, sound, etc., must be approximated as a point source. X-ray radiation is generated at the focal spot of an X-ray tube, a very small area. Point sources can be approximated with radiation when the source is far enough away AND small enough, which IS the case with most X-ray machines (refer to the figure below). That is, for the inverse-square law to hold, the distance from the source needs to be significantly greater than the source's size, as with X-ray machines. With PEMF devices, you are lying directly on the source of the magnetic field - the coils - so this most certainly DOES NOT apply! It's actually the opposite, in that the size of PEMF coils (the source) is much bigger than the distance away, since you lie directly on the coils! As a result, when Dr. Pawluk incorrectly applies the inverse-square law to large PEMF coils, errors can exceed 10,000%. This fundamental misunderstanding of the inverse-square law is the crux of Dr. Pawluk's erroneous high-intensity PEMF recommendations! As we'll see next, it gets even worse: not only is Dr Pawluk using the wrong equation, but he does not even apply it correctly!
[1] The Author is Dr. Pawluk
Quick Debunk of Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square Law Tables
Dr. Pawluk's inverse-square law charts show "0 inches away" from the source in the 1st row (see Figure 118), which already invalidates all his tables and debunks his whole scheme for recommending high intensity! This is because a zero distance from the source does not satisfy any inverse-square law equation. Why? Because there is zero radius to a point source (r=0)! The inverse square law requires you to compare at least two distances away from the source. You cannot include a source of radius zero because 1/0² = infinity!! This can easily be seen again in any basic science or math textbook, as well as in a simple Google search[1]. This alone debunks Dr. Pawluk's table, because at a distance of 0, he reports an example intensity of 0.1 mT or 100 μT.
[1] Enter into Google search: "Can you use the inverse square law at a distance zero?" and you'll see Google reply something like "No, you cannot use the inverse square law at a distance of zero because the law breaks down, resulting in an infinite value, which is not physically possible." Try it and see for yourself!
Dr. Pawluk's inverse-square law charts show "0 inches away" from the source in the 1st row (see Figure 118), which already invalidates all his tables and debunks his whole scheme for recommending high intensity! This is because a zero distance from the source does not satisfy any inverse-square law equation. Why? Because there is zero radius to a point source (r=0)! The inverse square law requires you to compare at least two distances away from the source. You cannot include a source of radius zero because 1/0² = infinity!! This can easily be seen again in any basic science or math textbook, as well as in a simple Google search[1]. This alone debunks Dr. Pawluk's table, because at a distance of 0, he reports an example intensity of 0.1 mT or 100 μT.
[1] Enter into Google search: "Can you use the inverse square law at a distance zero?" and you'll see Google reply something like "No, you cannot use the inverse square law at a distance of zero because the law breaks down, resulting in an infinite value, which is not physically possible." Try it and see for yourself!
Dr. Pawluk's Tables Are Based on a 1/2-Inch Diameter (1/4-inch radius) Spherical Source
In PEMF therapy, the sources are not point sources but circular coils, or loop sources. Close to the source, the inverse square law doesn't apply unless the source happens to be perfectly spherical. In order to attempt to fix the infinity problem stated above, Dr. Pawluk would need to use a spherical source of a certain radius r. Oddly enough, for reasons only he knows, he DOES this with an r=1/4 inch. That is, for the rest of his table to work, you need to put in 0.25 inches for .1mT or 100μT instead of 0 in the first row of his tables (see below right). So not only is Dr. Pawluk using the inverse-square law, which is the wrong equation, as we'll see next, but he's doing it all wrong. From this erroneous chart, Dr. Pawluk treats ALL PEMF COILS LIKE A 1/2 inch diameter (1/4 inch radius) spherical source! This is totally absurd: not only are most PEMF coils not spheres or that small, but they also vary in size, so you would need a different chart for each coil!
In PEMF therapy, the sources are not point sources but circular coils, or loop sources. Close to the source, the inverse square law doesn't apply unless the source happens to be perfectly spherical. In order to attempt to fix the infinity problem stated above, Dr. Pawluk would need to use a spherical source of a certain radius r. Oddly enough, for reasons only he knows, he DOES this with an r=1/4 inch. That is, for the rest of his table to work, you need to put in 0.25 inches for .1mT or 100μT instead of 0 in the first row of his tables (see below right). So not only is Dr. Pawluk using the inverse-square law, which is the wrong equation, as we'll see next, but he's doing it all wrong. From this erroneous chart, Dr. Pawluk treats ALL PEMF COILS LIKE A 1/2 inch diameter (1/4 inch radius) spherical source! This is totally absurd: not only are most PEMF coils not spheres or that small, but they also vary in size, so you would need a different chart for each coil!
Proof: Referring to Dr. Pawluk's table in Figure 118, since 0 inches is not allowed, we can determine the distance in the first row by looking at the second row. In the second row, we see the distance is 0.5 inches, and the intensity drops from 100 μT to 25 μT, which is 25% of the source. From the inverse-square law, as shown in Figure 120, we see that 1/4 of the source is at 2r, or twice the radius. Since 2r = 0.5 inches, we solve for r and find that r = 0.5 ÷ 2, or 0.25 inches. For Dr. Pawluk's table to work, the first row should be 0.25 inches, not 0. Let's check this at 1 inch. Because 1 inch is 4r (4×.25 = 1), the inverse-square law tells us the intensity should be 1/4² = 1/16, which equals 0.0625 or 6.25%. Notice that Dr. Pawluk's chart indeed confirms this, as 6.2 μT is close to 6.25% of 100 μT. If you follow his table, you will see that his numbers roughly match a 1/4-inch-radius sphere (1/2-inch diameter)[1], which makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, as there are zero PEMF coils on the market that fit this description!
[1] I say roughly because Dr. Pawluk makes several errors, even in his misapplication of the inverse square law.
[1] I say roughly because Dr. Pawluk makes several errors, even in his misapplication of the inverse square law.
The Biot-Savart Law IS the Correct Equation to Calculate PEMF Penetration
Applying the Biot-Savart Law shown in Figure 121 to a current loop or coil gives the CORRECT formula for how PEMFs drop off from the source loop of current (again, not a point source). When you use this CORRECT equation, you find it depends on the current intensity (source) and BOTH the distance from the source (z) AND the radius of the source coil (R). The inverse-square law depends only on the source intensity and the distance from the source. Notice that you CAN use z=0 in the Biot-Savart equation for a current loop because a loop is not a point source. If you do the math, when you set the distance to 0, you get B = 100% of the source magnetic field strength. This is great confirmation[1]!
[1] The equation here comes from the Biot-Savart Law and gives the percent drop-off at a distance z above the center of a PEMF loop of radius R. If you set z=0, notice the equation reduces to R3/R3 = 1 = 100%.
Applying the Biot-Savart Law shown in Figure 121 to a current loop or coil gives the CORRECT formula for how PEMFs drop off from the source loop of current (again, not a point source). When you use this CORRECT equation, you find it depends on the current intensity (source) and BOTH the distance from the source (z) AND the radius of the source coil (R). The inverse-square law depends only on the source intensity and the distance from the source. Notice that you CAN use z=0 in the Biot-Savart equation for a current loop because a loop is not a point source. If you do the math, when you set the distance to 0, you get B = 100% of the source magnetic field strength. This is great confirmation[1]!
[1] The equation here comes from the Biot-Savart Law and gives the percent drop-off at a distance z above the center of a PEMF loop of radius R. If you set z=0, notice the equation reduces to R3/R3 = 1 = 100%.
|
|
From the Biot-Savart Law, we see that different-sized coils have different drop-off values as shown in Figure 121. The dotted line (bottom graph) shows Dr. Pawluk's values for a 100 Gauss PEMF device. The other plots show various-sized 100 Gauss PEMF coils, ranging from 1.5 inches to 16 inches. Clearly, you can see that one chart cannot work for all PEMF devices, as the 16-inch coil has 10,000% more intensity than the 1.5-inch coil at 5 inches away! You cannot use a single "catch-all" chart for all sizes of PEMF coils, even with the correct Biot-Savart Law[1]. I have owned PEMF devices with circular coils as small as 1 inch in diameter, and I have also owned a device with coils as large as 6 feet in diameter. Clearly, physics shows us that large coils penetrate MUCH deeper than small coils for a given intensity. This is why you do not need high intensity to penetrate! The key is a high slew rate with larger coils, as we showed in Chapters 1-4.
[1] Important Note: All these charts and calculations are for the PEMF intensity drop-off from the center of a simple PEMF loop. The equations for flat coils with many windings, other shapes, and off-angle distances are more complicated, but they can STILL be calculated with the Biot-Savart Law, and they STILL will not remotely follow Dr. Pawluk's tables UNLESS the coils are teeny tiny small. Ultimately, the best test is accurate field measurements with a Hall-effect probe.
[1] Important Note: All these charts and calculations are for the PEMF intensity drop-off from the center of a simple PEMF loop. The equations for flat coils with many windings, other shapes, and off-angle distances are more complicated, but they can STILL be calculated with the Biot-Savart Law, and they STILL will not remotely follow Dr. Pawluk's tables UNLESS the coils are teeny tiny small. Ultimately, the best test is accurate field measurements with a Hall-effect probe.
Out of curiosity, I used the Biot-Savart Law to calculate the sizes of PEMF coils needed to reproduce Dr. Pawluk's Charts. By graphing a wide range of coil diameters, I was able to hone in on the coil diameter Dr. Pawluk would need to make his chart work. If you look at Figure 123, you can see the solid line is Dr Pawluk's table plotted for a 100 Gauss source. The dotted lines represent seven 100 Gauss coils, each 1 to 1.6 inches in diameter. What you see is the 1.3- and 1.4-inch-diameter coil that best duplicates his tables!! It turns out that, after doing the math, a 1.37-inch-diameter coil best fits Dr. Pawluk's tables. That is, Dr. Pawluk's inverse-square law tables only work as approximations for very small coils[1]!! There are no PEMF full-body mats with 1.37-inch-diameter coils; most are between 6 and 12 inches, as you can see in Figure 121, and are nowhere near Dr. Pawluk's erroneous values! See Figure 127, where I hold a roughly 1.37-inch diameter coil next to a quarter.
[1] The exact fit, as we mentioned, is a 1/2-diameter sphere, but Dr. Pawluk's tables also work reasonably well for small coils close to 1.3 to 1.4 inches in diameter, but only when they are around 2 to 5 inches away. 1.37 inches represents the closest fit for circular currents in coils (current loops), which are called magnetic dipoles in electrodynamics. Only the Biot-Savart Law gives accurate calculations for current loops or magnetic dipoles.
[1] The exact fit, as we mentioned, is a 1/2-diameter sphere, but Dr. Pawluk's tables also work reasonably well for small coils close to 1.3 to 1.4 inches in diameter, but only when they are around 2 to 5 inches away. 1.37 inches represents the closest fit for circular currents in coils (current loops), which are called magnetic dipoles in electrodynamics. Only the Biot-Savart Law gives accurate calculations for current loops or magnetic dipoles.
Further Confirmation - Measurements with a Hall Effect Probe
To put Dr. Pawluk's flawed charts to the test with accurate calculations AND real-world measurements, I looked at the magnetic field drop-off for a 5.25-inch radius coil (R=5.25"). First, I performed the calculations using the CORRECT equation for magnetic field drop-off in PEMF current loops, which is the Biot-Savart Law, not the inverse-square law. Then, to confirm these calculations, I used a Hall-effect probe[1] along with a premium Rohde & Schwarz oscilloscope to MEASURE the values[2]. You can see the measurement setups in Figure 123.
To my pleasant surprise, the actual field measurements on the 5.25-inch-radius coil matched the Biot-Savart law calculations almost perfectly, with an average error of only 4.1%. Dr. Pawluk only has his made-up calculations with ZERO measurements or testing to back them up. That is not how science works! And again, his charts come from a 0.25-inch-radius (.5-inch-diameter) spherical source, and best match a 1.37-diameter PEMF coil, which is why they are so far off compared to a 10.5-inch-diameter PEMF coil!! I did this to further demonstrate that the Biot-Savart Law is the correct equation by confirming my calculations with actual measurements. THIS is how science works: you back up your calculations with actual measurements. And my results are duplicatable (another hallmark of science and the scientific method). Anyone with the right equipment (i.e., a PEMF loop or coil, a Hall effect probe, and an oscilloscope) can do this experiment and see for themselves.
[1] The Hall-effect probe used was an Asahi Kasei Microdevice part number EQ731L with a sensitivity of 65 mV per millitesla.
[2] The tape measure in the image was moved out of the way for the measurements so that the magnetic fields would not couple through the steel.
To put Dr. Pawluk's flawed charts to the test with accurate calculations AND real-world measurements, I looked at the magnetic field drop-off for a 5.25-inch radius coil (R=5.25"). First, I performed the calculations using the CORRECT equation for magnetic field drop-off in PEMF current loops, which is the Biot-Savart Law, not the inverse-square law. Then, to confirm these calculations, I used a Hall-effect probe[1] along with a premium Rohde & Schwarz oscilloscope to MEASURE the values[2]. You can see the measurement setups in Figure 123.
To my pleasant surprise, the actual field measurements on the 5.25-inch-radius coil matched the Biot-Savart law calculations almost perfectly, with an average error of only 4.1%. Dr. Pawluk only has his made-up calculations with ZERO measurements or testing to back them up. That is not how science works! And again, his charts come from a 0.25-inch-radius (.5-inch-diameter) spherical source, and best match a 1.37-diameter PEMF coil, which is why they are so far off compared to a 10.5-inch-diameter PEMF coil!! I did this to further demonstrate that the Biot-Savart Law is the correct equation by confirming my calculations with actual measurements. THIS is how science works: you back up your calculations with actual measurements. And my results are duplicatable (another hallmark of science and the scientific method). Anyone with the right equipment (i.e., a PEMF loop or coil, a Hall effect probe, and an oscilloscope) can do this experiment and see for themselves.
[1] The Hall-effect probe used was an Asahi Kasei Microdevice part number EQ731L with a sensitivity of 65 mV per millitesla.
[2] The tape measure in the image was moved out of the way for the measurements so that the magnetic fields would not couple through the steel.
So, comparing actual field measurements and accurate calculations for this 5.25-radius coil with Dr. Pawluk's fictional inverse-square law charts, we can now compare them. Figure 125 summarizes my calculations and measurements compared to Dr Pawluk's calculations. The errors are astronomical! Notice that at 1 inch away, there is STILL 94.8% of the intensity, which is close to full power. According to Dr. Pawluk, there should be only 6.2% of the field, so there is already a 1500% error at 1 inch away!! These errors only get worse because a 10.5-inch coil drops off much more slowly (and hence penetrates much deeper into your body) than Dr. Pawluk's tables describe! At 5 inches, the error becomes borderline ludicrous, as the 10.5-inch-diameter coil still has 38% intensity at that distance!!! Dr. Pawluk claims the intensity should be only .5%! This is a 7600% ERROR compared to the correct calculations (again confirmed by accurate field measurements with a Hall probe and oscilloscope)! To put this astronomical error in perspective, let us use his recommendations for targeting something 5" away in the body. What that would mean in this case is you need 76 times LESS intensity than he recommends. So, you can see with definitive proof that Dr. Pawluk's main justification for recommending high intensity is based on flawed physics and overall very bad science! Not only that, his claims lack experimental validation (he has no experiments, tests, or measurements to back up his fallacious chart).
Just for fun, I plotted the intensity drop-offs of my Biot Savart calculations and my actual field measurements (circular and triangle-shaped data points - top graphs) compared to Dr. Pawluk's flawed tables (square data points - bottom graph). Figure 126 clearly shows how far off Dr. Pawluk's recommendations are for larger PEMF coils, such as this 10.5-inch-diameter loop. Just look at the enormous gap!!
Conclusion: Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square Law Tables only work for small PEMF coils with diameters close to 1.37 inches (See Figure above). When we use the correct equation (confirmed by actual field measurements), we find that larger coils have a much higher intensity than Dr. Pawluk's table indicates, up to 10,000% higher. What this means is you do NOT need high-intensity PEMF to penetrate deeply; what is really needed is a high-slew-rate, medium-intensity signal with larger, properly engineered coils!
Just for fun, I plotted the intensity drop-offs of my Biot Savart calculations and my actual field measurements (circular and triangle-shaped data points - top graphs) compared to Dr. Pawluk's flawed tables (square data points - bottom graph). Figure 126 clearly shows how far off Dr. Pawluk's recommendations are for larger PEMF coils, such as this 10.5-inch-diameter loop. Just look at the enormous gap!!
Conclusion: Dr. Pawluk's Inverse Square Law Tables only work for small PEMF coils with diameters close to 1.37 inches (See Figure above). When we use the correct equation (confirmed by actual field measurements), we find that larger coils have a much higher intensity than Dr. Pawluk's table indicates, up to 10,000% higher. What this means is you do NOT need high-intensity PEMF to penetrate deeply; what is really needed is a high-slew-rate, medium-intensity signal with larger, properly engineered coils!
Part 2 - The 15 Gauss (1.5 mT) Study that is the source of Dr Pawluk's Inverse Square Law Prescriptions
Dr. Pawluk's Bad Prescription for Intensity... EXPOSED
The actual PEMF study Dr. Pawluk uses as a basis for recommendations is an excellent study on inflammation. This study showed that a 15 gauss (1.5 mT) PEMF signal acted as a potent anti-inflammatory stimulus.
Before we get into his misrepresentation of this study, it is worth noting that the study itself not only debunks Dr. Pawluk's whole high-intensity agenda but, oddly, he even writes a massive contradiction to his high-intensity recommendations on page 395, once again debunking himself [3]!!
"...after 30 minutes of exposure, the receptors became saturated with a 1.5 mT magnetic field. The effect plateaued with intensities greater than 1.5 mT. This means that intensities above 1.5 mT produce no additional benefit... "
This is a direct quote from Dr. Pawluk referencing this study. He is basically admitting you do not need to use PEMF intensities greater than 1.5 mT or 15 gauss (see Figure 128)! And this, of course, is NOT a high-intensity but even on the lower end of medium-intensity (1-10 mT or 10-100 gauss). However, Dr. Pawluk goes outside of the methodology of that study and claims that you need 15 gauss at the target tissue within the body. Not only that, he uses his flawed inverse-square law table to determine the intensity needed at the body's surface to yield 15 gauss at the target. The study itself not only did NOT use the inverse square law, but the study itself used 15 gauss AT THE SURFACE! To further illustrate this faulty prescription, we'll use the kidney example he gives on pages 395-396 of his book Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy [3].
The actual PEMF study Dr. Pawluk uses as a basis for recommendations is an excellent study on inflammation. This study showed that a 15 gauss (1.5 mT) PEMF signal acted as a potent anti-inflammatory stimulus.
Before we get into his misrepresentation of this study, it is worth noting that the study itself not only debunks Dr. Pawluk's whole high-intensity agenda but, oddly, he even writes a massive contradiction to his high-intensity recommendations on page 395, once again debunking himself [3]!!
"...after 30 minutes of exposure, the receptors became saturated with a 1.5 mT magnetic field. The effect plateaued with intensities greater than 1.5 mT. This means that intensities above 1.5 mT produce no additional benefit... "
This is a direct quote from Dr. Pawluk referencing this study. He is basically admitting you do not need to use PEMF intensities greater than 1.5 mT or 15 gauss (see Figure 128)! And this, of course, is NOT a high-intensity but even on the lower end of medium-intensity (1-10 mT or 10-100 gauss). However, Dr. Pawluk goes outside of the methodology of that study and claims that you need 15 gauss at the target tissue within the body. Not only that, he uses his flawed inverse-square law table to determine the intensity needed at the body's surface to yield 15 gauss at the target. The study itself not only did NOT use the inverse square law, but the study itself used 15 gauss AT THE SURFACE! To further illustrate this faulty prescription, we'll use the kidney example he gives on pages 395-396 of his book Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy [3].
Step 1: Determine the depth of the target tissue and the thickness of the organ or area that needs to be covered. Dr. Pawluk uses the kidneys as an example: they are 2 inches deep and 2 inches thick. From this, he recommends a PEMF device that delivers at least 15 gauss (1.5 mT) 4 inches into the body to cover the entire kidney [4].
Step 2: Dr. Pawluk then uses his faulty inverse-square law tables to determine how many gauss are needed at the surface to achieve 15 gauss (1.5 mT) in that target tissue. His misguided reasoning is that 15 gauss is needed at the target tissue depth to shut off inflammation. This is where he refers to his mistaken inverse-square law table: for this example, with the kidneys, he recommends 1820 gauss because he thinks that is what is needed to get 15 gauss 4 inches in, according to his incredibly flawed inverse-square law tables.
Step 3: Dr. Pawluk will then tell you to buy an expensive high-intensity PEMF device with at least 1820 gauss (in this example, for the kidneys).
Step 2: Dr. Pawluk then uses his faulty inverse-square law tables to determine how many gauss are needed at the surface to achieve 15 gauss (1.5 mT) in that target tissue. His misguided reasoning is that 15 gauss is needed at the target tissue depth to shut off inflammation. This is where he refers to his mistaken inverse-square law table: for this example, with the kidneys, he recommends 1820 gauss because he thinks that is what is needed to get 15 gauss 4 inches in, according to his incredibly flawed inverse-square law tables.
Step 3: Dr. Pawluk will then tell you to buy an expensive high-intensity PEMF device with at least 1820 gauss (in this example, for the kidneys).
There are at least three serious flaws with Dr. Pawluk's prescriptions for high intensity, as stated above.
Flaw #1 - His tables are WRONG as we already explained, and not just by a little but by a LOT. For example, as we showed using the Biot-Savart law with a 10.5-diameter coil, I was able to both calculate and confirm with a Hall effect probe that you can get this 1.5 mT referenced in the study, even 4 inches deep, with ONLY 2.9 mT or 29 gauss (NOT 1820 gauss)!! And unlike Dr. Pawluk, I not only used the correct equation but also verified my calculation with actual field measurements using a Hall-effect probe and an oscilloscope!
Flaw #2 - He is cherry-picking only ONE of many PEMF studies on inflammation, and while it is a very good PEMF study, it says nothing about the slew rate like many other GOOD PEMF studies list. We should be more concerned with achieving a therapeutic slew rate of at least 10 T/s to the target tissue, as I discuss in Chapter 3! I discovered that the slew rate of the I-ONE PEMF device used in the study was only 3-5 T/s, which is slightly suboptimal. However, they achieved results because the device was worn for 5 hours a day for 90 days. My guess is that a higher slew rate signal would have yielded results more quickly.
Flaw #3 - Dr. Pawluk is misrepresenting the very study he is referencing! The study was targeting the knees, which would require approximately 2.5-3 inches to go all the way into the center[1], but the study ITSELF used only 15 gauss or 1.5 mT AT THE SURFACE! Let that sink in: the study that is the basis for all of Dr. Pawluk's recommendations used only a 1.5 mT/15 gauss signal, which is a medium intensity. None of the studies that used this device reported getting 15 gauss at any distance into the body? All of this is incredibly misleading, yet it serves as the basis for his recommendations for expensive, high-intensity devices in his consultations, books, ebooks, podcasts, etc. In fact, the second half of his book, Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy, all of his recommendations are not remotely accurate (unless the coils used are near 1.37 inches in diameter), as he gives recommendation after recommendation for high intensity based on his flawed tables misapplied to this PEMF study that didn't even follow his prescription.
In conclusion, Dr. Pawluk is using the wrong equation (inverse square law), the wrong parameter for PEMF (intensity), and is grossly misrepresenting and twisting the very study that is the basis for ALL his recommendations. If he used the correct equation (Biot-Savart Law), he would find that only a medium-intensity PEMF device (with a large enough coil diameter) is needed to penetrate deeply into the body. Most full-body mat PEMF devices I have dissected and used use coils that are at least 5-6 inches in diameter, up to 22 inches.
[1] Based on the average knee diameter according to one study [24].
Flaw #1 - His tables are WRONG as we already explained, and not just by a little but by a LOT. For example, as we showed using the Biot-Savart law with a 10.5-diameter coil, I was able to both calculate and confirm with a Hall effect probe that you can get this 1.5 mT referenced in the study, even 4 inches deep, with ONLY 2.9 mT or 29 gauss (NOT 1820 gauss)!! And unlike Dr. Pawluk, I not only used the correct equation but also verified my calculation with actual field measurements using a Hall-effect probe and an oscilloscope!
Flaw #2 - He is cherry-picking only ONE of many PEMF studies on inflammation, and while it is a very good PEMF study, it says nothing about the slew rate like many other GOOD PEMF studies list. We should be more concerned with achieving a therapeutic slew rate of at least 10 T/s to the target tissue, as I discuss in Chapter 3! I discovered that the slew rate of the I-ONE PEMF device used in the study was only 3-5 T/s, which is slightly suboptimal. However, they achieved results because the device was worn for 5 hours a day for 90 days. My guess is that a higher slew rate signal would have yielded results more quickly.
Flaw #3 - Dr. Pawluk is misrepresenting the very study he is referencing! The study was targeting the knees, which would require approximately 2.5-3 inches to go all the way into the center[1], but the study ITSELF used only 15 gauss or 1.5 mT AT THE SURFACE! Let that sink in: the study that is the basis for all of Dr. Pawluk's recommendations used only a 1.5 mT/15 gauss signal, which is a medium intensity. None of the studies that used this device reported getting 15 gauss at any distance into the body? All of this is incredibly misleading, yet it serves as the basis for his recommendations for expensive, high-intensity devices in his consultations, books, ebooks, podcasts, etc. In fact, the second half of his book, Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy, all of his recommendations are not remotely accurate (unless the coils used are near 1.37 inches in diameter), as he gives recommendation after recommendation for high intensity based on his flawed tables misapplied to this PEMF study that didn't even follow his prescription.
In conclusion, Dr. Pawluk is using the wrong equation (inverse square law), the wrong parameter for PEMF (intensity), and is grossly misrepresenting and twisting the very study that is the basis for ALL his recommendations. If he used the correct equation (Biot-Savart Law), he would find that only a medium-intensity PEMF device (with a large enough coil diameter) is needed to penetrate deeply into the body. Most full-body mat PEMF devices I have dissected and used use coils that are at least 5-6 inches in diameter, up to 22 inches.
[1] Based on the average knee diameter according to one study [24].
Other PEMF Experts Like Dr. Robert Dennis Agree Dr Pawluk Doesn't Understand Electromagnetism
Dr Pawluk Debunking Himself With a Magnetic Field Testing Showing Low Intensity Penetrates Fine!!
|
|
|
Part 3 - Dr Pawluk's Own Citations from all his books, ebooks and contributing chapters support Low and Medium Intensity More than High Intensity
Still Skeptical? Dr Pawluk's Citations Support Medium (and lower) Intensity PEMF!
I have heard Dr. Pawluk and many other high-intensity proponents mention that research supports high intensity. I decided to put this claim to the test by reviewing all of Dr. Pawluk's citations across his books, eBooks, and contributing chapters [5-20]. I was incredibly thorough, spending nearly a month full-time going through and carefully analyzing over 700 of Dr. Pawluk's citations (removing all duplicates). As much as he promotes high intensity, only 17% of the PEMF studies he references are high intensity! 76% are low and medium-intensity studies! Here is the direct link to a Google sheet with ALL of his citations so you can see for yourself: https://bit.ly/4mBTXPx
When you take out the rTMS studies (which is not something we should be looking at because it is very specialized for clinical use), only 5% of the studies Dr. Pawluk quotes IN ALL HIS BOOKS, eBooks, and contributing chapters are high intensity studies [5-20]!
Even Dr. Pawluk's research study with Robert Dennis on TBI (traumatic brain injury) does not support his position of recommending high intensity (that study used a medium-intensity 10 mT/10 Hz square wave) [22]. This is the kind of signal I now recommend! And as we mentioned, the Massari study he references in his recent books, chapters, ebooks, articles, and podcasts uses only 1.5 mT, or 15 gauss [2]. Also of note is that Dr. Pawluk conducted a low-intensity PEMF study on osteoarthritis, showing that 8 minutes twice daily for 6 weeks significantly improved knee function and walking ability [23]
I have heard Dr. Pawluk and many other high-intensity proponents mention that research supports high intensity. I decided to put this claim to the test by reviewing all of Dr. Pawluk's citations across his books, eBooks, and contributing chapters [5-20]. I was incredibly thorough, spending nearly a month full-time going through and carefully analyzing over 700 of Dr. Pawluk's citations (removing all duplicates). As much as he promotes high intensity, only 17% of the PEMF studies he references are high intensity! 76% are low and medium-intensity studies! Here is the direct link to a Google sheet with ALL of his citations so you can see for yourself: https://bit.ly/4mBTXPx
When you take out the rTMS studies (which is not something we should be looking at because it is very specialized for clinical use), only 5% of the studies Dr. Pawluk quotes IN ALL HIS BOOKS, eBooks, and contributing chapters are high intensity studies [5-20]!
Even Dr. Pawluk's research study with Robert Dennis on TBI (traumatic brain injury) does not support his position of recommending high intensity (that study used a medium-intensity 10 mT/10 Hz square wave) [22]. This is the kind of signal I now recommend! And as we mentioned, the Massari study he references in his recent books, chapters, ebooks, articles, and podcasts uses only 1.5 mT, or 15 gauss [2]. Also of note is that Dr. Pawluk conducted a low-intensity PEMF study on osteoarthritis, showing that 8 minutes twice daily for 6 weeks significantly improved knee function and walking ability [23]
Most of Dr Pawluk's High Intensity Citations are rTMS Studies
More recently, Faraday induction has been used in a different context, namely to induce currents in the brain (Figure 34.14), as a means of treating depression. The repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) procedure10,11 is often compared with the older treatment for bipolar disorder, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), which is purely electrical in nature.
Although the means of delivery for rTMS is very different from Bassett’s PEMF signals, and the focus is on the brain instead of the skeletal system, it is important to realize that Faraday induction is being employed in both cases. Both PEMF and rTMS are magnetic therapies whose utilization derives from inductively generated currents that were found earlier to be clinically efficacious when these were previously used in older, electrically based therapies.
The repetitive transcranial stimulation coil (in a figure-of-eight configuration) is pulsed with very large currents to produce a rapidly changing magnetic field, thereby inducing currents in the brain.
More recently, Faraday induction has been used in a different context, namely to induce currents in the brain (Figure 34.14), as a means of treating depression. The repetitive transcranial stimulation (rTMS) procedure10,11 is often compared with the older treatment for bipolar disorder, or electroconvulsive therapy (ECT), which is purely electrical in nature.
Although the means of delivery for rTMS is very different from Bassett’s PEMF signals, and the focus is on the brain instead of the skeletal system, it is important to realize that Faraday induction is being employed in both cases. Both PEMF and rTMS are magnetic therapies whose utilization derives from inductively generated currents that were found earlier to be clinically efficacious when these were previously used in older, electrically based therapies.
The repetitive transcranial stimulation coil (in a figure-of-eight configuration) is pulsed with very large currents to produce a rapidly changing magnetic field, thereby inducing currents in the brain.
Dr. Pawluk's Appeal to Authority Fallacy
The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because an authority figure said it, without providing further evidence or reasoning. This is a fallacy because the truth of a claim doesn't depend on who makes it, but on the evidence supporting it. I have heard many times that Dr. Pawluk uses his credentials and authority status to state that his claims are true, EVEN THOUGH physics, science, and research DO NOT support his position, as this page has shown. It seems that is all he has when pressed on these fatal errors because he has no logical answer for his bad science, so he defaults to something to the effect of "I am the foremost PEMF expert, listen to me"!
The appeal to authority fallacy occurs when someone argues that a claim is true simply because an authority figure said it, without providing further evidence or reasoning. This is a fallacy because the truth of a claim doesn't depend on who makes it, but on the evidence supporting it. I have heard many times that Dr. Pawluk uses his credentials and authority status to state that his claims are true, EVEN THOUGH physics, science, and research DO NOT support his position, as this page has shown. It seems that is all he has when pressed on these fatal errors because he has no logical answer for his bad science, so he defaults to something to the effect of "I am the foremost PEMF expert, listen to me"!
References
[1] Pawluk, W & Layne, C. Power Tools for Health. FriesenPress (2017).
[2] 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.
[3] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. Gatekeeper Press (2021).
[4] Moorthy HK and Venugopal P. Measurement of renal dimensions in vivo: A critical appraisal. Indian J Urol. 2011 Apr-Jun; 27(2): 169–175.
[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] 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).
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/pawluckpaper
[20] Pawluk, W. Magnets, Meridians, and Energy Medicine: An interview with William Pawluk, M.D. M.Sc. Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 2002-04.
[21] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dOBOhuqzdBhZOAANnvT_2KCFWAdNxNc1WloU33_KRKM
[22] 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.
[23] 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.
**END OF CHAPTER**
[1] Pawluk, W & Layne, C. Power Tools for Health. FriesenPress (2017).
[2] 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.
[3] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. Gatekeeper Press (2021).
[4] Moorthy HK and Venugopal P. Measurement of renal dimensions in vivo: A critical appraisal. Indian J Urol. 2011 Apr-Jun; 27(2): 169–175.
[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] 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).
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/pawluckpaper
[20] Pawluk, W. Magnets, Meridians, and Energy Medicine: An interview with William Pawluk, M.D. M.Sc. Alternative and Complementary Therapies, 2002-04.
[21] https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1dOBOhuqzdBhZOAANnvT_2KCFWAdNxNc1WloU33_KRKM
[22] 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.
[23] 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.
**END OF CHAPTER**
Dr. Pawluk Debunking Himself YET Again:
Dr. Pawluk again unknowingly debunks himself in his book Supercharge Your Health with PEMF on page 410. When he talks about the benefits of the Helmholtz coil setup we looked at in the previous sections on coils, he states that the intensities of both coils combine (which is correct). Still, he then goes on to say "this intensity drops off per the inverse square law as the magnetic field moves away from the applicator" [115]. What is funny is that he provides two pictures depicting this and provides a link to the source of the images. When you click on this link, lo and behold, what do you find, NOT the inverse square law, but the Biot-Savart Law!!! Type in the link and see for yourself, this is most definitely NOT the inverse square law because the inverse square law ONLY applies to point sources and spheres [416]!
[115] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. Gatekeeper Press (2021), p 410.
[416] Https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/j.s.reid/pages/Maxwell/Legacy/MaxCoil.html
Dr. Pawluk again unknowingly debunks himself in his book Supercharge Your Health with PEMF on page 410. When he talks about the benefits of the Helmholtz coil setup we looked at in the previous sections on coils, he states that the intensities of both coils combine (which is correct). Still, he then goes on to say "this intensity drops off per the inverse square law as the magnetic field moves away from the applicator" [115]. What is funny is that he provides two pictures depicting this and provides a link to the source of the images. When you click on this link, lo and behold, what do you find, NOT the inverse square law, but the Biot-Savart Law!!! Type in the link and see for yourself, this is most definitely NOT the inverse square law because the inverse square law ONLY applies to point sources and spheres [416]!
[115] Pawluk, W. Supercharge Your Health with PEMF Therapy. Gatekeeper Press (2021), p 410.
[416] Https://homepages.abdn.ac.uk/j.s.reid/pages/Maxwell/Legacy/MaxCoil.html
Extra Proof Debunking Dr Pawluk's tables using his own Published Version of the Inverse Square Law.
Notice the Inverse Square Law ONLY works for Distances away from the source that are much larger than the Source. You have to have at least one measurement of Intensity a distance d away before you can calculate the inverse square drop-offs at any other distance away. And d can NEVER be zero because 1/0² = Infinity!
Dr Pawluk lists the Correct Formula for the Inverse Square Law, I₁*d₁² = I₂*d₂², but fails to realize that you cannot have a d=0, like he does in his first row. For example if you want to find the intensity at d=1 cm away, take his first row as d₁=0 , I₁=100, I₂= .25, solving for d₂, you would get get: d₂²= I₂/(I₁*d₁²) = .25/(100*0) = .25/0 = Infinity!
Notice the Inverse Square Law ONLY works for Distances away from the source that are much larger than the Source. You have to have at least one measurement of Intensity a distance d away before you can calculate the inverse square drop-offs at any other distance away. And d can NEVER be zero because 1/0² = Infinity!
Dr Pawluk lists the Correct Formula for the Inverse Square Law, I₁*d₁² = I₂*d₂², but fails to realize that you cannot have a d=0, like he does in his first row. For example if you want to find the intensity at d=1 cm away, take his first row as d₁=0 , I₁=100, I₂= .25, solving for d₂, you would get get: d₂²= I₂/(I₁*d₁²) = .25/(100*0) = .25/0 = Infinity!
|
|
Science Aside - The Inverse Square Law and Symmetries in Physics [**Optional**]
Notice in these examples ONLY spherical symmetry leads to an inverse square law. This is true with ALL inverse square forces. Lines, planes, rings and other source geometries DO NOT fall off by 1/r^2. The inverse-square laws in physics applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is evenly radiated outward from a point or spherical source in three-dimensional space. Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, light, sound, radiation phenomena.
Because these are all conserved quantities, it follows from symmetry that the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr^2) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted energy gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source. Imagine a balloon of a given amount of material, which we can call the mass of the balloon. If we can imagine that the balloon starts off collapsed to a point as we blow up the balloon in a sphere that amount of "substance" gets spread out on the surface. If we look at how much substance is at a point on the balloon, we'll see it has dropped off by the inverse square law compared to the original point. That is, the TOTAL amount of substance stays the same but as the balloon gets bigger and bigger it spreads out and becomes more "dilluted". This substance can be gravitational or electrical forces, light, sound and even magnetism.
But if we have a different geometric SOURCE of energy then a point or a sphere, then the inverse square laws in physics need to be integrated over the source. When you do this for simple geometries like lines, sheets or rings, we find the forces - due to symmetry - no longer drop off by the inverse square law. For example a very large sheet does not drop off at all if the point is close to the sheet, a line of drops off by a 1/r not r^2 and a ring drops off by 1/(r+D)^3/2 - SEE BELOW. And it does not matter if it is mass, electric charge, current, or light. It turns out the inverse square law ONLY holds for point sources and spheres, any other "Source" geometry needs to be integrated OR if it is symmetric, use Gauss's laws of math (popularly applied to electrostatics and gravity).
Notice in these examples ONLY spherical symmetry leads to an inverse square law. This is true with ALL inverse square forces. Lines, planes, rings and other source geometries DO NOT fall off by 1/r^2. The inverse-square laws in physics applies when some force, energy, or other conserved quantity is evenly radiated outward from a point or spherical source in three-dimensional space. Newton's law of universal gravitation follows an inverse-square law, as do the effects of electric, light, sound, radiation phenomena.
Because these are all conserved quantities, it follows from symmetry that the surface area of a sphere (which is 4πr^2) is proportional to the square of the radius, as the emitted energy gets farther from the source, it is spread out over an area that is increasing in proportion to the square of the distance from the source. Imagine a balloon of a given amount of material, which we can call the mass of the balloon. If we can imagine that the balloon starts off collapsed to a point as we blow up the balloon in a sphere that amount of "substance" gets spread out on the surface. If we look at how much substance is at a point on the balloon, we'll see it has dropped off by the inverse square law compared to the original point. That is, the TOTAL amount of substance stays the same but as the balloon gets bigger and bigger it spreads out and becomes more "dilluted". This substance can be gravitational or electrical forces, light, sound and even magnetism.
But if we have a different geometric SOURCE of energy then a point or a sphere, then the inverse square laws in physics need to be integrated over the source. When you do this for simple geometries like lines, sheets or rings, we find the forces - due to symmetry - no longer drop off by the inverse square law. For example a very large sheet does not drop off at all if the point is close to the sheet, a line of drops off by a 1/r not r^2 and a ring drops off by 1/(r+D)^3/2 - SEE BELOW. And it does not matter if it is mass, electric charge, current, or light. It turns out the inverse square law ONLY holds for point sources and spheres, any other "Source" geometry needs to be integrated OR if it is symmetric, use Gauss's laws of math (popularly applied to electrostatics and gravity).
Now by source we mean ANY source of energy, be it mass, light, sound, electric charge, electric current or any conserved radiation. What I find fascinating is that for all these different types of energy, the energy fields drop off the SAME for a given geometry. For example for point sources of light, sound, charge or radiation, the energy will drop off by the inverse square law for ALL OF THEM. For lines of current, charge, mass, and light the energy drops off by 1/r for ALL OF THEM. For rings of charge, light, current, and mass the energy drops off by 1/(r+D)^3/2 for ALL OF THEM!
The inverse square law can never work for PEMF loops and coils, because NO PEMF devices use point sized coils or spherically shaped coils. And even worse, PEMFs, current loops and magnetic fields are DIPOLES (both north and south or +/- polarity) and even if you have a point source dipole, you have to use the dipole equation which is NOT an inverse square law. When you have a line or loop of current which is what PEMF coils are you need to use the Biot Savart Law which we already mentioned.
Now you can see the deeper reasons why Dr Pawluk's Inverse square law explanations are so incredibly wrong. All his tables assume a 1/4 inch radius sphere which is nonsensical. Why does he treat all PEMF coils like 1/4 inch spheres. You have to ask him, because only he knows. Even if he tried to use the inverse square law for different size PEMF coils, it is the wrong symmetry so it will never work.
The inverse square law can never work for PEMF loops and coils, because NO PEMF devices use point sized coils or spherically shaped coils. And even worse, PEMFs, current loops and magnetic fields are DIPOLES (both north and south or +/- polarity) and even if you have a point source dipole, you have to use the dipole equation which is NOT an inverse square law. When you have a line or loop of current which is what PEMF coils are you need to use the Biot Savart Law which we already mentioned.
Now you can see the deeper reasons why Dr Pawluk's Inverse square law explanations are so incredibly wrong. All his tables assume a 1/4 inch radius sphere which is nonsensical. Why does he treat all PEMF coils like 1/4 inch spheres. You have to ask him, because only he knows. Even if he tried to use the inverse square law for different size PEMF coils, it is the wrong symmetry so it will never work.
More Studies to Debunk High Intensity and Several That Show Higher Intensity is NOT good for healing!
Massari Study
Anti-inflammatory effects from Adenosine (ATP)
A2A Receptors 1.5 mT / 1100 us pulse duration = 3 T/s
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.
Dr Pawluk's Own Study 10 mT / 10 Hz
[129] 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).
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/pawluckpaper
Cheng (1982) ATP - Higher currents lowered Protein synthesis
Freidenberg (1970) 2-20 uA/cm2 ideal for healing - over 50 causes necrosis
Robert Becker nano currents , Frederick brown
Diniz (2002) <7mT bone stimulation
Rubin (1989) induced field must be small or will not work
Pilla - Low intensity Ca/Calmodulin Nitric Oxide synthase pathway.
physiostim study 30 T/s > 100 and 300
[85] 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.
PEMF can influence adult stem cells - [MORE IS NOT BETTER - 20 mT did not work] The successful use of sinusoidal EMFs in differentiation studies has mainly involved an EMF with parameters of 1–5 mT, 10–50 Hz. The only study using a sinusoidal EMF [38] in which a higher intensity of EMF was used (20 mT) did not show any significant effect on osteogenic differentiation.
[62] 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}
[63] Blank M, Goodman R. 2004. Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced interactions. J Cell Physiol 199: 359–363.
[64] 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.
Necrosis
Values of applied current below 2 μA/cm2 are ineffective, while currents of over 50 μA/cm2 may cause necrosis of the tissue. For this reason, the apparatus employed in clinical practice is limited in tension (typically below 2.3 V). 2-20 uA/cm2 is optimal.
[65] 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.
[66] 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
Need Small Current - Research shows that the induced field must be small or it will not work (Rubin 1989).
[67] 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.
1989
Under 7 mT for bones
When the field strength is relatively high at 7 mT (milliTesla) osteoblasts were stimulated to increase bone production only at the beginning of the experiment. (Diniz 2002/81) Later in the study the osteoblast activity decreased. This is a reminder of the importance of the biological window – and in this case, the amplitude window in exerting consistently positive therapeutic effects. Most beneficial effects occur at very low electromagnetic amplitudes (or “flux densities”).
[68] 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.
Too much induced current lower ATP and decreased Protein Synthesis
[69] 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.
Cheng 1982 - 10-1000uA 300-500% increase ATP
Another effect of electric fields is the enhancement of ATP production in the cells involved in the repair process. This is important because energy from ATP is needed to power cell migrations and the synthesis of new proteins and other molecules that must be replaced. This was demonstrated by Cheng et al. (1982), who found that currents of 10–1000 μA produced a three- to five-fold increase in ATP levels. Higher current levels, into the milliampere range, decreased protein synthesis.
Ideally <30 Gauss to avoid Dipole Saturation & Curies Law
Gordon, G.A. (2007), Designed electromagnetic pulsed therapy: Clinical applications. J. Cell. Physiol., 212: 579-582.
Pulsed therapeutic fields are usually more effective if less than 30 gauss (see Curie's Law and dipole saturation), and frequencies are commonly less than 100 Hz
Massari Study
Anti-inflammatory effects from Adenosine (ATP)
A2A Receptors 1.5 mT / 1100 us pulse duration = 3 T/s
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.
Dr Pawluk's Own Study 10 mT / 10 Hz
[129] 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).
https://www.josam.org/josam/article/view/pawluckpaper
Cheng (1982) ATP - Higher currents lowered Protein synthesis
Freidenberg (1970) 2-20 uA/cm2 ideal for healing - over 50 causes necrosis
Robert Becker nano currents , Frederick brown
Diniz (2002) <7mT bone stimulation
Rubin (1989) induced field must be small or will not work
Pilla - Low intensity Ca/Calmodulin Nitric Oxide synthase pathway.
physiostim study 30 T/s > 100 and 300
[85] 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.
PEMF can influence adult stem cells - [MORE IS NOT BETTER - 20 mT did not work] The successful use of sinusoidal EMFs in differentiation studies has mainly involved an EMF with parameters of 1–5 mT, 10–50 Hz. The only study using a sinusoidal EMF [38] in which a higher intensity of EMF was used (20 mT) did not show any significant effect on osteogenic differentiation.
[62] 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}
[63] Blank M, Goodman R. 2004. Initial interactions in electromagnetic field-induced interactions. J Cell Physiol 199: 359–363.
[64] 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.
Necrosis
Values of applied current below 2 μA/cm2 are ineffective, while currents of over 50 μA/cm2 may cause necrosis of the tissue. For this reason, the apparatus employed in clinical practice is limited in tension (typically below 2.3 V). 2-20 uA/cm2 is optimal.
[65] 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.
[66] 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
Need Small Current - Research shows that the induced field must be small or it will not work (Rubin 1989).
[67] 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.
1989
Under 7 mT for bones
When the field strength is relatively high at 7 mT (milliTesla) osteoblasts were stimulated to increase bone production only at the beginning of the experiment. (Diniz 2002/81) Later in the study the osteoblast activity decreased. This is a reminder of the importance of the biological window – and in this case, the amplitude window in exerting consistently positive therapeutic effects. Most beneficial effects occur at very low electromagnetic amplitudes (or “flux densities”).
[68] 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.
Too much induced current lower ATP and decreased Protein Synthesis
[69] 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.
Cheng 1982 - 10-1000uA 300-500% increase ATP
Another effect of electric fields is the enhancement of ATP production in the cells involved in the repair process. This is important because energy from ATP is needed to power cell migrations and the synthesis of new proteins and other molecules that must be replaced. This was demonstrated by Cheng et al. (1982), who found that currents of 10–1000 μA produced a three- to five-fold increase in ATP levels. Higher current levels, into the milliampere range, decreased protein synthesis.
Ideally <30 Gauss to avoid Dipole Saturation & Curies Law
Gordon, G.A. (2007), Designed electromagnetic pulsed therapy: Clinical applications. J. Cell. Physiol., 212: 579-582.
Pulsed therapeutic fields are usually more effective if less than 30 gauss (see Curie's Law and dipole saturation), and frequencies are commonly less than 100 Hz
**Safety Concerns with High Intensity PEMF due to muscle contraction and excessive nerve stimulation**
<10 Gauss - [Safe but not high enough intensity to create high slew rate PEMF - 20% studies]
10-100 Gauss [Just Right/ Best for High Slew Rate/Most researched intensities - 75%]
Not high enough to cause muscle contraction or nerve stimulation but the perfect range to create a safe, effective and research proven high slew rate signal.
> 1000 Gauss - Too High - Potentially not safe
High intensity PEMF devices deliver short burst of energy that can cause the muscles to contract. This can also short circuit the nerves to temporarily alleviate pain, however, they have the potential to cause harm when used long term or by inexperienced clinicians. ICNIRP – The world wide government body of health regulators that set safety standards for professionals that use magnetic fields in healthcare, state in their magnetic field safety guideline manual:
“Thus, the perception of surface electric charge, the direct stimulation of nerve and muscle tissue and the induction of retinal phosphenes are well established and can serve as a basis for guidance.”
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPLFgdl.pdf
Based on this criteria the ICNIRP sets conservative safety standards at 5 mT or 50 Gauss. While they make this clear using retinal phosphenes is perhaps overly conservative, it is important to note many high intensity PEMF devices are 100-200 times this safety standard (5000 - 10000 Gauss or .5 -1 Tesla). So this should be alarming to anyone who uses high intensity on a regular basis.
Good Reason to make sure to stay under 1875 Gauss to Protect the Heart
The application of strong magnetic fields in the proximity of the heart should be handled with special precautions
Formica D., Silvestri S. Biological effects of exposure to magnetic resonance imaging: An overview. Biomed. Eng. Online. 2004;3:11.
Similar arguments show that the most sensitive population percentile should experience cardiac stimulation (extra induced beats) when the peak gradient field reaches about 1875 gauss. Limiting peak gradient fields to approximately 600 gauss should provide a wide safety margin against cardiac stimulation.
Schaefer, D.J., Bourland, J.D. and Nyenhuis, J.A. (2000), Review of Patient Safety in Time-Varying Gradient Fields. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 12: 20-29
Another along this line
Too high of a Slew Rate / Intensity causes potential unhealthy PNS (Peripheral Nerve Stimulation)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cmr.10011
Liu, F., Crozier, S., Zhao, H. and Lawrence, B. (2002), Finite-difference time-domain-based studies of MRI pulsed field gradient-induced eddy currents inside the human body. Concepts Magn. Reson., 15: 26-36.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is caused by electric currents applied to or induced in the body: It is an iatrogenic disease of athletes caused by use of electrotherapy devices
Since the reports of an increased incidence of ALS in Italian soccer players [2], and US professional football players [3], I had been
suspicious about their exposure to TENS devices and electrical diathermy devices, because of the repeated reports [4–8] of the connection of ALS with electrical shocks and electrical environments.
[3] ALS advocacy blog spot. <http://als-advocacy.blogspot.com/> [accessed
25.01.10].
[4] Deapen DM, Henderson BE. A case-control of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 1986;123:790–9.
[5] Johansen C. Mortality from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, other chronic
disorders and electric shocks among utility workers. Am J Epidemiol
1998;148:362–8.
[6] Johansen C. Exposure to electromagnetic fields and risk of central nervous system disease in utility workers. Epidemiology 2000;11:539–43.
[7] Davanipour Z, Sobel E, Bowman JD, Qian Z, Will AD. Amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Bioelectromagnetics 1997;18:28–35.
[8] Savitz DA, Checkoway H, Loomis DF. Magnetic field exposure and
neurodegenerative disease mortality among electric utility workers.
Epidemiology 1998;9:398–404
The High Intensity PEMF Dilemma - Dirty Electricity or Noise gets AMPLIFIER
**High Intensity is Loud Noise**
Do you remember way back in about the 1970’s, when you walked through an airport or any public place with a PA system (Public Announcement)? The sound was always terrible, and it sounded like Charlie Brown’s teacher: “Wah wah wah, wah wah…”
So, how did they fix it? They just cranked up the volume.
This mostly resulted in louder noise, more pain to listen to it, but not necessarily better understanding of what was being said.
So, literally, was “more power” making it louder? Well, technically, yes.
But was the problem solved, was it easier to understand? Well, not really.
Can you hear it better? Well, painfully yes I guess.
Can you understand it better? Not really
Was there a side effect of more power on a noisy garbled signal? Yes, several negative side effects, including making normal speech nearly impossible to hear, and potential ear damage if exposed for too long.
So, with noisy signals more is more, but it is also somehow less.
<10 Gauss - [Safe but not high enough intensity to create high slew rate PEMF - 20% studies]
10-100 Gauss [Just Right/ Best for High Slew Rate/Most researched intensities - 75%]
Not high enough to cause muscle contraction or nerve stimulation but the perfect range to create a safe, effective and research proven high slew rate signal.
> 1000 Gauss - Too High - Potentially not safe
High intensity PEMF devices deliver short burst of energy that can cause the muscles to contract. This can also short circuit the nerves to temporarily alleviate pain, however, they have the potential to cause harm when used long term or by inexperienced clinicians. ICNIRP – The world wide government body of health regulators that set safety standards for professionals that use magnetic fields in healthcare, state in their magnetic field safety guideline manual:
“Thus, the perception of surface electric charge, the direct stimulation of nerve and muscle tissue and the induction of retinal phosphenes are well established and can serve as a basis for guidance.”
https://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPLFgdl.pdf
Based on this criteria the ICNIRP sets conservative safety standards at 5 mT or 50 Gauss. While they make this clear using retinal phosphenes is perhaps overly conservative, it is important to note many high intensity PEMF devices are 100-200 times this safety standard (5000 - 10000 Gauss or .5 -1 Tesla). So this should be alarming to anyone who uses high intensity on a regular basis.
Good Reason to make sure to stay under 1875 Gauss to Protect the Heart
The application of strong magnetic fields in the proximity of the heart should be handled with special precautions
Formica D., Silvestri S. Biological effects of exposure to magnetic resonance imaging: An overview. Biomed. Eng. Online. 2004;3:11.
Similar arguments show that the most sensitive population percentile should experience cardiac stimulation (extra induced beats) when the peak gradient field reaches about 1875 gauss. Limiting peak gradient fields to approximately 600 gauss should provide a wide safety margin against cardiac stimulation.
Schaefer, D.J., Bourland, J.D. and Nyenhuis, J.A. (2000), Review of Patient Safety in Time-Varying Gradient Fields. J. Magn. Reson. Imaging, 12: 20-29
Another along this line
Too high of a Slew Rate / Intensity causes potential unhealthy PNS (Peripheral Nerve Stimulation)
https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/cmr.10011
Liu, F., Crozier, S., Zhao, H. and Lawrence, B. (2002), Finite-difference time-domain-based studies of MRI pulsed field gradient-induced eddy currents inside the human body. Concepts Magn. Reson., 15: 26-36.
Amyotrophic lateral sclerosis (Lou Gehrig’s disease) is caused by electric currents applied to or induced in the body: It is an iatrogenic disease of athletes caused by use of electrotherapy devices
Since the reports of an increased incidence of ALS in Italian soccer players [2], and US professional football players [3], I had been
suspicious about their exposure to TENS devices and electrical diathermy devices, because of the repeated reports [4–8] of the connection of ALS with electrical shocks and electrical environments.
[3] ALS advocacy blog spot. <http://als-advocacy.blogspot.com/> [accessed
25.01.10].
[4] Deapen DM, Henderson BE. A case-control of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Am J Epidemiol 1986;123:790–9.
[5] Johansen C. Mortality from amyotrophic lateral sclerosis, other chronic
disorders and electric shocks among utility workers. Am J Epidemiol
1998;148:362–8.
[6] Johansen C. Exposure to electromagnetic fields and risk of central nervous system disease in utility workers. Epidemiology 2000;11:539–43.
[7] Davanipour Z, Sobel E, Bowman JD, Qian Z, Will AD. Amyotrophic lateral
sclerosis and occupational exposure to electromagnetic fields.
Bioelectromagnetics 1997;18:28–35.
[8] Savitz DA, Checkoway H, Loomis DF. Magnetic field exposure and
neurodegenerative disease mortality among electric utility workers.
Epidemiology 1998;9:398–404
The High Intensity PEMF Dilemma - Dirty Electricity or Noise gets AMPLIFIER
**High Intensity is Loud Noise**
Do you remember way back in about the 1970’s, when you walked through an airport or any public place with a PA system (Public Announcement)? The sound was always terrible, and it sounded like Charlie Brown’s teacher: “Wah wah wah, wah wah…”
So, how did they fix it? They just cranked up the volume.
This mostly resulted in louder noise, more pain to listen to it, but not necessarily better understanding of what was being said.
So, literally, was “more power” making it louder? Well, technically, yes.
But was the problem solved, was it easier to understand? Well, not really.
Can you hear it better? Well, painfully yes I guess.
Can you understand it better? Not really
Was there a side effect of more power on a noisy garbled signal? Yes, several negative side effects, including making normal speech nearly impossible to hear, and potential ear damage if exposed for too long.
So, with noisy signals more is more, but it is also somehow less.
9) Safety - Is high intensity potentially harmful [Important]?
Important Biophysics Discussion on Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Excitability
The short answer is most likely not if used intermittently and with caution if you are chemically sensitive, electrohypersensitive (EHS), or if you have any heart conditions or seizure related conditions. This also applies to moderately sensitive people and to people that use high intensity every day over many years, not so much limited and short term use. Even though most high intensity PEMF is for the most part safe to use for healthy people on a daily basis, there are some studies from the field of MRI imaging that we should NOT ignore. MRIs, like high intensity PEMF, are very strong magnetic fields (~1.5 T) which do change with time and hence can induce high electric fields via Faraday's law of induction (slew rate). Personally I feel more research needs to be done and BECAUSE medium intensity (higher slew rate) heals your body better and faster than high intensity, it is the best option.
I have personally used high intensity extensively as an experiment on myself and while I still prefer lower intensity systems for daily use AND healing and regeneration, I have had no issues UNLESS I turn it up too high. Because high intensity induces such strong electric fields it can ellicit strong reactions in the muscles and nerves because these are the two types of tissues/cells that are excitable. Excitability is defined in biology as the ability of a muscle or nerve to respond to a stimulus. 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 and Fasciculation (fuh-sick-u-lation) which is an involuntary Muscle Twitching in the muscles. Most concerning for safety is the heart. Because the heart is a muscle, it too can be excited and extra beats can be induced which in very rare cases can leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. While this is rare for most commercial high intensity systems, in this section we want to bring into your awareness good research for you to ponder so you can err on the side of caution.
Fortunately with high intensity PEMF, nerve stimulation (PNS) and muscle twitching (fasciculation) occur at intensities and slew rates well below cardiac stimulation. Large induced current densities occur in highly conductive tissues such as blood and muscles making them more vulnerable to unhealthy currents. Tissues with higher water content such as muscle, kidney , heart and liver have a larger conductivity than tissues with low water content such as bone, fat and lung [1]. So my advice is listen to your body and avoid nerve pain and excessive fasciculation. Personally I have found that when I go too high certain areas of my body experience uncomfortable nerve pain, so I use this as a guide to go LOWER as to not experience any discomfort. This 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. So while mild nerve and muscle stimulation is generally not considered harmful, very strong electric fields can potentially stimulate the heart, leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias in rare case. Along with avoiding any excessive discomfort, also one tip is to make sure your hands are not clasped together during a high intensity session, as this can concentrate the electric fields! This is easy to demonstrate to yourself when doing a high intensity session. But nerve stimulation (PNS) and muscle twitching (fasciculation) are increased when you put your hands together.
Typically here is a progression you can feel which I have documented with my extensive experience using high intensity. 1) and 2) are totally fine and problably for most people 3) too. If you avoid 4) you won't have to worry about 5).
1) Warmth/ Relaxation
2) Mild Tingling, mild fasciculation
3) More intense tingling, vigorous fasciculation
4) Strong fasciculation, discomfort and even pain
5) Cardiac Stimulation a main concern at levels too high!
By Potential “Major Harm”, I mean the potential of causing injury or death that anyone would immediately appreciate: heart attacks, electrical burns, severe nerve damage, major tissue lesions or tumors or the promotion of sepsis, etc.
Potential Major Harm: As far as I know, PEMF products are not generally causing major harm to people. Even the ultra-powerful ones tend to be pretty harmless (when used correctly). Otherwise, there would be major product recalls and many scientific and clinical reports on this topic, but there are not. I have read every scientific paper in every language on the topic of PEMF, including clinical case studies, and I have never heard of a case of PEMF used correctly causing this type of harm.
By Potential “Subtle Harm”, I mean those injuries not yet generally appreciated by mainstream medicine, such as the type of harm reported by people with EMI sensitivity, and things of a similar nature.
Subtle Harm is, by its nature, very difficult to detect and to prove. Just as a matter of common sense, the approach should be to remove all known types of electromagnetism from the PEMF signal that are not biologically beneficial. I have been able to show, and have written extensively about, the fact that it is possible to remove at least 99% of the power from typical PEMF pulses and still retain full biological benefit. So, what, exactly, was the remaining 99% of the power doing? Nothing beneficial, maybe something harmful. Its hard to say for sure, but that energy is definitely not needed, and confers no benefit, so it should be removed from all PEMF waveforms.
When looking to avoid potentially harmful PEMF products, generally you do not need to worry to much about obvious, major harm, since there seems to be very little evidence of this type of danger. If your concern is subtle harm, for example if you are EMI sensitive, then you need to be much more concerned with waveform rather than power (Gauss level). So, if this is your primary concern, I would steer away from any of the high-power systems they call “ringers”, which are often advertised as using “Spark Gap Technology!!”, because spark gap technology is very very old, cheap and crude. It predates even vacuum tubes, and generates very powerful, but very inefficient and “dirty”, electro-magnetic pulses.
See Point # ? On Electrosmog and EMF concerns with PEMF
Important Biophysics Discussion on Peripheral Nerve Stimulation and Excitability
The short answer is most likely not if used intermittently and with caution if you are chemically sensitive, electrohypersensitive (EHS), or if you have any heart conditions or seizure related conditions. This also applies to moderately sensitive people and to people that use high intensity every day over many years, not so much limited and short term use. Even though most high intensity PEMF is for the most part safe to use for healthy people on a daily basis, there are some studies from the field of MRI imaging that we should NOT ignore. MRIs, like high intensity PEMF, are very strong magnetic fields (~1.5 T) which do change with time and hence can induce high electric fields via Faraday's law of induction (slew rate). Personally I feel more research needs to be done and BECAUSE medium intensity (higher slew rate) heals your body better and faster than high intensity, it is the best option.
I have personally used high intensity extensively as an experiment on myself and while I still prefer lower intensity systems for daily use AND healing and regeneration, I have had no issues UNLESS I turn it up too high. Because high intensity induces such strong electric fields it can ellicit strong reactions in the muscles and nerves because these are the two types of tissues/cells that are excitable. Excitability is defined in biology as the ability of a muscle or nerve to respond to a stimulus. 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 and Fasciculation (fuh-sick-u-lation) which is an involuntary Muscle Twitching in the muscles. Most concerning for safety is the heart. Because the heart is a muscle, it too can be excited and extra beats can be induced which in very rare cases can leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias. While this is rare for most commercial high intensity systems, in this section we want to bring into your awareness good research for you to ponder so you can err on the side of caution.
Fortunately with high intensity PEMF, nerve stimulation (PNS) and muscle twitching (fasciculation) occur at intensities and slew rates well below cardiac stimulation. Large induced current densities occur in highly conductive tissues such as blood and muscles making them more vulnerable to unhealthy currents. Tissues with higher water content such as muscle, kidney , heart and liver have a larger conductivity than tissues with low water content such as bone, fat and lung [1]. So my advice is listen to your body and avoid nerve pain and excessive fasciculation. Personally I have found that when I go too high certain areas of my body experience uncomfortable nerve pain, so I use this as a guide to go LOWER as to not experience any discomfort. This 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. So while mild nerve and muscle stimulation is generally not considered harmful, very strong electric fields can potentially stimulate the heart, leading to life-threatening cardiac arrhythmias in rare case. Along with avoiding any excessive discomfort, also one tip is to make sure your hands are not clasped together during a high intensity session, as this can concentrate the electric fields! This is easy to demonstrate to yourself when doing a high intensity session. But nerve stimulation (PNS) and muscle twitching (fasciculation) are increased when you put your hands together.
Typically here is a progression you can feel which I have documented with my extensive experience using high intensity. 1) and 2) are totally fine and problably for most people 3) too. If you avoid 4) you won't have to worry about 5).
1) Warmth/ Relaxation
2) Mild Tingling, mild fasciculation
3) More intense tingling, vigorous fasciculation
4) Strong fasciculation, discomfort and even pain
5) Cardiac Stimulation a main concern at levels too high!
By Potential “Major Harm”, I mean the potential of causing injury or death that anyone would immediately appreciate: heart attacks, electrical burns, severe nerve damage, major tissue lesions or tumors or the promotion of sepsis, etc.
Potential Major Harm: As far as I know, PEMF products are not generally causing major harm to people. Even the ultra-powerful ones tend to be pretty harmless (when used correctly). Otherwise, there would be major product recalls and many scientific and clinical reports on this topic, but there are not. I have read every scientific paper in every language on the topic of PEMF, including clinical case studies, and I have never heard of a case of PEMF used correctly causing this type of harm.
By Potential “Subtle Harm”, I mean those injuries not yet generally appreciated by mainstream medicine, such as the type of harm reported by people with EMI sensitivity, and things of a similar nature.
Subtle Harm is, by its nature, very difficult to detect and to prove. Just as a matter of common sense, the approach should be to remove all known types of electromagnetism from the PEMF signal that are not biologically beneficial. I have been able to show, and have written extensively about, the fact that it is possible to remove at least 99% of the power from typical PEMF pulses and still retain full biological benefit. So, what, exactly, was the remaining 99% of the power doing? Nothing beneficial, maybe something harmful. Its hard to say for sure, but that energy is definitely not needed, and confers no benefit, so it should be removed from all PEMF waveforms.
When looking to avoid potentially harmful PEMF products, generally you do not need to worry to much about obvious, major harm, since there seems to be very little evidence of this type of danger. If your concern is subtle harm, for example if you are EMI sensitive, then you need to be much more concerned with waveform rather than power (Gauss level). So, if this is your primary concern, I would steer away from any of the high-power systems they call “ringers”, which are often advertised as using “Spark Gap Technology!!”, because spark gap technology is very very old, cheap and crude. It predates even vacuum tubes, and generates very powerful, but very inefficient and “dirty”, electro-magnetic pulses.
See Point # ? On Electrosmog and EMF concerns with PEMF
Seattle Times Warns about PAP-IMI (high intensity PEMF)
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/public-never-warned-about-dangerous-device/
Panos Pappas, a math professor from Athens, Greece, who invented the PAP-IMI (Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor). He sold the machines to scores of practitioners in the United States who used them to exploit patients. They avoided detection by taking advantage of federal regulations that allow them to operate on an honor system in clinical studies.
Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has linked Pappas’ machine to patient injuries and death, it has never warned the public about the dangers.
And while the FDA in 2005 prohibited the use of the machine, The Seattle Times found PAP-IMIs in use in at least five states, including Washington. Among those offering treatments were a psychologist in State College, Pa.; a physician in Bellflower, Calif., and a former chiropractor in Issaquah.
PAP-IMI list of 14 objectionable items from the FDA
https://www.circare.org/info/stemcell/papimi_fdaeir20020910.pdf
Interesting Wallach was a proponent of Low intensity PEMF which you can see in an article he wrote in 1999 before becoming involved with PAP-IMI and eventually the CEO of the main importer of PAP-IMI in U.S.
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/public-never-warned-about-dangerous-device/
Panos Pappas, a math professor from Athens, Greece, who invented the PAP-IMI (Pap-Ion Magnetic Inductor). He sold the machines to scores of practitioners in the United States who used them to exploit patients. They avoided detection by taking advantage of federal regulations that allow them to operate on an honor system in clinical studies.
Although the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has linked Pappas’ machine to patient injuries and death, it has never warned the public about the dangers.
And while the FDA in 2005 prohibited the use of the machine, The Seattle Times found PAP-IMIs in use in at least five states, including Washington. Among those offering treatments were a psychologist in State College, Pa.; a physician in Bellflower, Calif., and a former chiropractor in Issaquah.
PAP-IMI list of 14 objectionable items from the FDA
https://www.circare.org/info/stemcell/papimi_fdaeir20020910.pdf
Interesting Wallach was a proponent of Low intensity PEMF which you can see in an article he wrote in 1999 before becoming involved with PAP-IMI and eventually the CEO of the main importer of PAP-IMI in U.S.
Typically there is a progression you can feel with PEMF which I have documented with my extensive experience using both low, medium and high intensity. 0), 1), 2) and 3) are totally fine for most people (see below). And if you avoid 4) you won't have to worry about 5) as MRI studies show , so again LISTEN to your body. This is NOT a "no pain no gain" type of therapy. If you feel any type of nerve, muscle or pain in general, GO LOWER AND SLOWER.
0) You can feel nothing at low intensity
1) Warmth/ Relaxation / Mild Tingles at low to moderate intensity
2) moderate Tingling, mild fasciculation at higher intensity
3) More intense tingling, vigorous fasciculation at high intensity > 5000 Gauss
4) Strong fasciculation, sometimes discomfort and pain > 1 Tesla (10,000 Gauss)
5) Cardiac Stimulation a main concern at levels too high (fortunately almost all high intensity PEMF does not interfere with the heart! Personally I would only worry with devices > 2 Tesla like the Zimmer emFieldPro which is 3 tesla, but it is a localized device THEY MAKE IT CLEAR NOT to use over the heart, so even they understand this. See image here from their user Manual.
0) You can feel nothing at low intensity
1) Warmth/ Relaxation / Mild Tingles at low to moderate intensity
2) moderate Tingling, mild fasciculation at higher intensity
3) More intense tingling, vigorous fasciculation at high intensity > 5000 Gauss
4) Strong fasciculation, sometimes discomfort and pain > 1 Tesla (10,000 Gauss)
5) Cardiac Stimulation a main concern at levels too high (fortunately almost all high intensity PEMF does not interfere with the heart! Personally I would only worry with devices > 2 Tesla like the Zimmer emFieldPro which is 3 tesla, but it is a localized device THEY MAKE IT CLEAR NOT to use over the heart, so even they understand this. See image here from their user Manual.
@ Copyright 1998-2023 | All Right Reserved | Bryantmeyers.com