Electronic Treatment For Diabetes?

If you ask power companies and cell phone carriers how much electromagnetic radiation affects the human body, they’ll tell you it doesn’t at any normal levels. If you ask [Calvin Carter] and some other researchers at the University of Iowa, they will tell you that it might treat diabetes. In a recent paper in Cell Metabolism, they’ve reported that exposing patients to static magnetic and electric fields led to improved insulin sensitivity in diabetic mice.

Some of the medical jargon in a paper like this one can be hard to follow, but it seems they feed mice on a bad diet — like that which many of us may eat — and exposed them to magnetic and electrical fields much higher than that of the Earth’s normal fields. After 30 days there was a 33% improvement in fasting blood glucose levels and even more for some mice with a specific cause of diabetes.

The magnetic field was 3 mT and the electric field was 7 kV/m. That sounds like a lot, but at sea level we normally experience about 120 V/m, so it’s hardly the equivalent of grabbing a live wire.

Interestingly, the same effect occurred when the mice were exposed for only seven hours a day. You can infer then that one day, diabetics might just sleep under an electromagnetic field and have improved glucose metabolism.

There’s some medical speak about why they think this works, but it was pretty dense on biology terms. The key phrase seems to be “modulating the systemic GSH/GSSG redox environment.” GSH/GSSG is the glutathione-to-glutathione disulfide redox couples, if that tells you anything.

This would be amazing news for people with diabetes, especially if they don’t decide it also causes blindness, cancer, and restless leg syndrome. No more fake pancreas! We don’t know, though, if the results would apply to type 1 diabetes as it sounds like the mice all had type 2.

23 thoughts on “Electronic Treatment For Diabetes?

  1. Small sample size and else than the main claims mentioned above, their paper is full of inconsistent findings and the data is all over the place… I’ll call BS on this one, it’s easy to get a positive result when you measure 20 things and pick the one that looks better afterwards.

  2. My mother spent my entire childhood showing me articles like this showing preliminary medical research.

    She routinely forgot that she would frequently read an article that flatly contradicted one that she read some time ago.

  3. Insulin sensitivity isn’t the issue that type 1 diabetics have. In that form of diabetes, the pancreas either doesn’t produce enough insulin or shuts down completely. This treatment might have some benefit in rare cases (there is still some insulin production AND the person also suffers from low sensitivity, which would be a combination of type 1 and type 2 factors), but it will be useless for most type 1 diabetics.

  4. AC fields, DC fields and propagating radiation and ionizing radiation all do different things. Some apparently do nothing within reasonable limits. Some are proven theraputic techniques. Some are harmful. Nerve stimulation, bone growth, radiology, etc, etc. Some animals may be able to sense the Earth’s magnetic field direction. Some people think magnet therapy does wonderful things. There have been a huge number of medical scams over the years. If researchers find some beneficial aspect of electric/magnetic fields, doesn’t surprise me a bit. Do enough research and it might even be true. Or maybe not.

  5. Changing to a vegetarian or vegan diet that is designed by a nutritionist to be complete will cure a significant number of people with type two diabetes, COVID-19 will also put an end to your diabetes but not in a way that you’d find convenient.

    1. A person need not change their diet so radically as to become a vegetarian or vegan to simply improve their health and reduce their sugars getting them out of the diabetic range. For example, omitting beef from the diet and sticking to chicken, fish, turkey and pork along with walking for 15 minutes following each meal and maybe even eating a couple of ounces of Jell-O before each meal would go along way toward dropping your sugars. But don’t get your medical advice from the Internet. As already suggested, talk to your primary care provider, nutritionist or an endocrinologist.

        1. I was told by a nutritional physician to keep under “6 carbs” per meal, on average per day. It drastically improved my A1C and health in general and allowed me to eat most foods in moderation.

    2. This is frankly wrong. It is generally a scam diet that promotes veganism for diabetes. In reality people with diabetes achieve far better control on a low carbohydrate diet. (eg high protein ie high meat/ low carbohydrate diet). How do I know? I am a real medical doctor.

      1. I concur with the real medical doctor. I am a real type 2 diabetic who has stopped using insulin and even has blood glucose back down in the pre-diabetic range as a result of cutting my carbs to near keto level. I haven’t tasted bread in over a year.

        As for omitting beef, I’d like to know where @Anonymous is finding starchy beef.

    3. See this bit “designed by a nutritionist”? Foolish people, the point is that if you get all of the standard food pyramid items AND stick to your total energy intake limits (because you need to restrict that to drop weight) you have very little left over in your calorie budget for meat which has a high energy density, yet you will get the amino acids etc. that you require. There is no shortage of research to support my point, e.g. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5466941/

    1. I was going to say the same thing. Static electric fields and static magnetic fields do not radiate. Electromagnetic radiation is the interrelation of changing (oscillating) electric and magnetic fields. So regardless of the validity of this paper’s conclusions, it does not contradict the statement that EM radiation (sub X-ray) doesn’t affect the human body.

  6. “The magnetic field was 3 mT and the electric field was 7 kV/m. That sounds like a lot, but at sea level we normally experience about 120 V/m, so it’s hardly the equivalent of grabbing a live wire.”

    Actually 7000 V/m does seem like the equIvalent of a grabbing a live wire

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.