We’re certainly not qualified to say whether or not pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) therapy will actually reduce your stress or improve your circulation, but there seems to be enough legitimate research going on out there that it might be worth a shot. After all, unless you’ve got a pacemaker or other medical implant, it seems pretty unlikely a magnetic field is going to make anything worse. Unfortunately commercial PEMF machines can cost thousands of dollars, making it a fairly expensive gamble.
But what if you could build one for as little as $10 USD? That’s the idea behind the simple DIY PEMF machine [mircemk] has been working on, and judging by its ability to launch bits of metal in the video below, we’re pretty confident it’s indeed producing a fairly powerful electromagnetic field. Even if it doesn’t cure what ails you, it should make an interesting conversation piece around the hackerspace.
While the outside of the machine might look a bit imposing, the internals really are exceptionally straightforward. There’s an old laptop power supply providing 19 VDC, a dual-MOSFET board, a potentiometer, and a simple signal generator. The pulses from the signal generator trip the MOSFET, which in turn dumps the output of the laptop power supply into a user-wound coil. [mircemk] has a 17 cm (6.7 inch) open air version wrapped with 200 turns of copper wire used for treating wide areas, and an 8 cm (3 inch) diameter version with 300 windings for when you need more targeted energy.
Some skepticism is always in order with these sort of medicinal claims, but commercial PEMF machines do get prescribed to users to help promote bone growth and healing, so the concept itself is perhaps not as outlandish as it might seem.
It is quite simple: how does one call alternative medicine that has been proven safe and efficacious?
Medicine.
PEMF is quackery.
Are you sure? Because I did a bit of googling:
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6806956/
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/274990413_A_Review_of_Pulsed_Electromagnetic_Field_PEMF_Mechanisms_at_a_Cellular_Level_A_Rationale_for_Clinical_Use
There was also a NASA paper somewhere stating it offers slight improvement in healing of injuries. I did some research years ago. Also we know for a fact that strong electromagnetic fields affect human brain – some researchers while doing fMRI studies on depression or schizophrenia (I don’t remember, which) noted improvement in patients after the session, that lasted for hours (or day, don’t remember). Anyway, more research is needed before PEMF gets dismissed…
OK, the long answer:
PEMF for orthopedic purposes is ineffective. A meta-analysis of 37 studies, with 3.379 patients (Schmidt-Rohlfing, 2000) found no evidence for efficacy.
There may be potential for stimulating bone growth with PEMF, but before that is proven safe and effective I wouldn’t undergo any “therapy” some dude on the Internet with a miracle machine is promoting.
“Anyway, more research is needed before PEMF gets dismissed…”
No, that is not how medicine works.
More research is needed before PEMF gets approved, trusted and applied.
So you won’t respect research that I linked? Why? Is it because it doesn’t match your personal view on the subject?
Can we agree, at least, that more research is needed? The kind that won’t benefit anyone either way?
Because for years we had research that shown no correlation between smoking tobacco and getting various types of cancer, until anti-tobacco groups got more money than tobacco companies to spend on research. The same thing happened with climate changes research…
Don’t dismiss anything until there is enough research done. As for PEMF, current research is lacking either way. so I won’t dismiss it outright, but I won’t consider it a viable replacement or supplement of any other therapy just yet…
So by your logic, whoever has the most money must be right. Gotcha. There are several articles in mainstream media about how one of the early patients of the inventor was deranged by the device.
I think that when I said that there is potential for bone growth stimulus, that implies I do not dismiss it totally. But that also means it should be studied in carefully designed clinical trials, not practised by quacks making a quick buck off the desperate.
Have you tried the therapy yourself or are you just on paper. Lots of variables. I have had dramatic improvement from osteoarthritis, inlflammation and energy and more… MANY having these results not just anecdotal.
https://faseb.onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1096/fj.201900057R
there are more recent articles. Proving more and more that the effect is on the cellular level. It affects the TRPC-1. A calcium channel receptor which then induces myogenesis.
Magnets are also used in specific cancer therapies. It exploits a microvascular
You should have done a little more googling. I did. The American Journal of Health Research is named to be easily confused with a reputable, peer-reviewed scientific publication; but as far as I can ascertain, it is not one itself. Rather, it’s a paper mill – it’ll publish any old bollocks as long as you can come up with the fee.
Sometimes, the story tells itself.
Magnetic fields absolutely affect us and it’s know. We are programmed to only use oil products as medication and yes some are great but most is trash. I feel that if we believe in something it can help us. And if there is science and new study’s into quantum physics proving these “quack” options work then good because we need a change our medical establishment keeps us alive but sick if something can heal us but we can see it with our eyes im all in besides our eyes do not see 2% of what’s goin on around us look it up. I’m happy you put up links 👍
OK this is just lying now
PEMF is quackery, it is not mainstream medicine and never will be
How honest are you when you use a different name everytime
Therefore there will be no new medicine ever.
No. Alternative therapies undergo clinical testing, and when found safe and effective are incorporated into medicine. Off the top off my head I can think of a few therapies that a few decades ago would have been classified as “alternative”: honey for wound care, maggots for debridement of wounds, leeches in plastic surgery.
i mean that is part of the story but if you look at the recent history of approved and incorporated therapies, there is one part of the process leading to their approval which you left out: they are shown to be profitable.
it does make a lot of room for quacks to say their therapy must be effective because it’s so inexpensive that the medical industry is trying to squash it. obviously that doesn’t logically follow. but it’s definitely true that unprofitable therapies receive much less funding for clinical testing, and that fact cannot be ignored even if it should not be misinterpretted.
Incorrect.
You have not even made the case that “unprofitable” therapies exist. Anything that is effective is by its nature valuable. This value is magnified if you ascribe to the conspiracy minded view that “they” are just out to make a buck, rather than the more realistic view that yes, companies exist only to profit, but they contain people executing methods based science for altruistic purposes and are regulated by bodies and laws intended to force them to profit by competing with each other to offer the public effective therapies.
Also, “definitely true” that unprofitable therapies get less research funding? You definitely need to display some evidence there.
lol Strathe. Okay, how many bllions of dollars have been spent on studying the effects of next generation SSRIs each time one of those patent families dies out? since almost any therapeutic is more effective than SSRIs and almost any therapeutic receives less study funding than that, you really don’t need to go further than that.
My guess there is a range starting with quackery and ending, at least for now, for reasons of national security on a need to know basis (or at least is the claim) systems that can do like Dr. Jose Delgado wanted to demonstrate in regards to wirelessly mind control and more with the body and sound controls. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bprdgamfp5M&t=10s (watch at least until 1 minute)
The human body has a very wide range of electrophysiological functions with specific individual fingerprint/target signatures, some of which are taught in bioelectromagnetism related courses ( https://www.bem.fi/book/book.pdf ) and other bio related courses throughout pre-med studies on up and my guess in other specific roles. Also, technically now that I think about, roughly in a range of certification courses also albeit in not nearly as much detail regarding the spikes and specific waveforms details, i.e. the codes.
Kind of seems fitting the issues where the specific individualized medicinal effect electrophysiological codes aren’t well disclosed. In general some codes are and even those aren’t well detailed like say for instance resetting someone’s heart as done with cardioversion. https://news.emory.edu/stories/2014/01/jjm_cardiology_icd/campus.html Easy to some, no clue to many if not most in some places and they’ll think I’m babbling word salad.
Most in 1st world nations are aware of what an AED can do basically. However, I’m guessing most aren’t aware of the specific details regarding how the system operates and the exact effect the device output signals have on a patient.
To me, AED seems brute force when there must be a minimalist individualized way that most won’t even think can exist wireless without an implant and probably from a distance like a remote first responding and/or life support system.
Now, in regards to what PEMF (ambiguous definition) can do to make things worse… here is an interesting example of Transcranial Magnetic stimulation:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FMR_T0mM7Pc&t=7s
Couldn’t help but chuckle at this opening:
“demonstrate … wirelessly mind control and more with … sound controls … watch at least until 1 minute.”
Will I be wasting my time, blown away by the science or will I even remember having watched it at all? ;-)
“Had most of his brain turned off” that’s nothing, I’ve had all my brain turned off for years.
PEMF and TMS have very little to do with one another. One is effecting bias potential in and around neurons and having a rather obvious effect, while the other seems to be targeting totally different things. It’s a bit like comparing a horse and an orange. They both contain liquids.
Randomly, I’ve met a bloke, who knew the chap that invented TMS (I couldn’t as he’s long dead). Neither of them would use it. However, my wife is a neuroscientist and meddles with peoples brains in the name of science. It’s pretty weird being zapped by it.
On a similar note, the Oxford academic who popularised the notion that running DC through your head could make you better at math, which resulted in gamers making rigs to run it through their heads – has been somewhat discredited by his colleagues. So perhaps that’s not a god idea either.
So… Nope… Wouldn’t encourage anyone to build one of these machines. Clearly any effect of PEMF (if there is one) is almost certainly so minor that it’s vanishing (otherwise such a simple technique would be used and even holding a phone would have been shown to have health benefits – maybe – but no). But also, the utter novice certainly does not understand it. The notion of this leading to people zapping their brains in the self belief that it could do them some good seems silly. It’s like kicking the sticks of the spinning plates in the hope they’ll spin more neatly.
However, if anyone does try it – do publicise so the rest of us can watch and learn. Who knows. There’s always the smallest chance doing something dumb can pay off.
That’s why FDA licences it for fracture healing, brain tumour treatment , amongst other issues!?
I designed one years ago.
Accidentally tapped [Enter].
Anyways my version was two-channel current-fed setup with adjustable frequency, amplitude and selectable waveforms. I had major problems with bad solders, botched PCB and firmware written in mikroPascal for PIC. I’ll eventually redo this project with better hardware design and firmware written in XC…
“it seems pretty unlikely a magnetic field is going to make anything worse”.
Strange thing to say if you think one can make things better.
Since you’ve already looked into that – please cite some credible sources.
I just ddged “Bone Growth Simulator” for a short time (~5 minutes) and the first credible looking source was WebMD[1] which basically said: Needs more study / Inconclusive…
Just because “they” – whoever they may be – have used it “in medicine” for more than 65 years doesn’t mean diddly squad in regards into it’s effects or effectiveness (distinguishable from the the placebo effect).
[1] https://www.webmd.com/a-to-z-guides/what-to-know-about-bone-stimulators-for-fracture
I’m ambivalent as to whether it does anything or not. But if it can have a positive effect with one set of values, then surely it can have a negative effect with a different set. I can’t think of any phenomenon that is purely good, irrespective of variable values.
>”seems unlikely to make things worse”
In unrelated news…
https://hackaday.com/2021/08/29/the-curious-case-of-the-radio-amateur-and-the-insulin-pump/
https://win.adrirobot.it/nuova_elettronica/lx_811.htm
https://www.electroyou.it/giulio22/wiki/aggiornare-la-magnetoterapia-lx1293-di-nuova-elettronica
The now defunct italian electronics magazine published several kits to to make magnetotherapy.
Basically they were signal generators coupled with amplifier and a voice coil.
” but there seems to be enough legitimate research going on out there that it might be worth a shot. ”
That’s a formal logical error, Ad Populum: Appeal to Popularity
I meant fallacy, not error
Does anyone know how the frequencies and intensities of these machines are chosen?
All the commercial devices seem to use different settings without any apparent reason,
Is there some kind of logic at work?
Was there a first refenence that everyon has simply followed?
Or do people really just do this at random?
You’re facing the same issue as the rest of us when looking into any “truth” in this. Doesn’t seem to be much concrete concrete footings for PEMF.
TMS on the other hand seems to be based on estimation of threshold reset times of neurons (been a while since looking into it). But there’s clearly been a lot of tweaking the settings will they work well, while making sure they stay below dangerous levels. All quite challenging as the pulses through the coils are huge. Has to be as coupling to the brain is pretty poor.
Above I mentioned the chap who came up with it wouldn’t have a go. Neither would anyone in the magnetics department at Cardiff Uni, where a some of the Magstim coils were developed. Quite amusing that those who know just how much vigour the current has, mistrust it’s use on themselves.
Fortunately this little device couldn’t pack the punch of a TMS machine. Magstim for example use GAEP capacitors – similar to those in de-fib units – and reply on LCR discharges rather then PWM.
TMS, is one form of PEMF. Many people have a hard time understand what exactly encompasses PEMF. All the people saying that is a bs therapy have alot to learn. Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy has been used in many various forma for over 100 years. The original versions were created and tested by famous inventor Nikola Telsa. Hence all PEMF machines today use Tesla coils. TMS is un ultra high intensity magnetic field, another example in the medical world is TTF by novocure which treats brain cancer with alternating Magnetic field with a very weak electrical pulse but uses frequencies sweeping from 100,000 Hertz to 300,000 Hertz to treat brain cancer and its been proven to work. Pemf goes by so many different names and form its not a single device. Low intensity devices work on the principal of frequency wave form to target specific tissues and cell activity. High intensity works on using very low frequency to work on quickly increasing membrane voltage potential. Most devices work very well if designed properly. To all the people talking smack there is over 10,000 scientific studies on using Pemf devices in health care. I own a wide range of various electrotherapy devices including muiltiple PEMF machines they work miracles. Some pemf out there is bogus but thats only a few machines being sold on amazon and ebay.
” To all the people talking smack there is over 10,000 scientific studies on using Pemf devices in health care.”
This appears to be an exaggeration, and even the scientific studies that have been done do not conclude the the PEMF studied was beneficial, most conclude that “more research needs to be done”. Which is academic speak for “give me more money”
I repeat my request is there a legitimate study that focuses on why a particular, waveform, frequency and intensity were chosen? Cite me that one article and I may join your side
What frequency ranges are available from this device? Are they in the range of Schumann Resonance?
I’m not very technical, but I do have a bit of experience with PEMF. My dog has been treated with PEMF and hypothermia on areas of his body that have tumors. We’ve had great success getting rid of them.
when you had your dog treated, do you know any specifics of the device used or the frequency, intensity used?
There have been claims used to cure cancer in people with PEMF but the people involved ended in jail.
How do you go from treating non fusion fracture in bone to treating cancer, to using PEMF to sterilise water by killing pathogens? Surely the frequency, intensity and duty cycle cannot be the same for all these treatments. How do you design a machine without knowing the parameters for beneficial operation? Where is the science, is there a good source for any of this?
T-PEMF (Transcranial Pulsed EMF) is a approved treatment for depression, in Denmark, where im from. I know it sounds mind boggling, to put electromagnets on the head as a “T-EMF” helmet, but from what I can find, the science in this regard is done sound and open. What really gets me pissed off, Is the fact that private clinics, are charging 45k kr. ( 6340$ ) for a 8 week treatment. I guess the argument for this rip-off pricing, is the dev. cost, control with the device (since its a medical device) and so on.
The claim is; that the hippocampus in the brain can be stimulated to heal a otherwise “damaged” or dormant brain, thereby increasing the overall plasticity of that brain, which should have a positive effect on depression. If that is true, then lots of people could benefit from this, not just people with clinical depression. They also claim, that there is no side-effect.
Here I have gathered some resources on the subject: https://community.simplefoc.com/t/t-pemf-0-1-50hz-brainwave-stimulation/2146
I do not have any experience using this devise.
I fully get the skepticisms regarding the efficacy. This is from a professor of psychiatry:
»I would say that I was very skeptical about it at first because it sounded too good to be true, but we have tried it on patients here in Glostrup, and it has a fantastic effect, and we have not observed no side effects at all. This is very, very interesting, and our patients with chronic depression are starting to ask if they can buy it, so they have it left at home until the next time the depression returns. I would do the same if I was in their situation myself, “says Poul Videbech – professor of psychiatry and chief physician at Psychiatric Center Glostrup
The project mentioned in the article above, although I believe it can generate electromagnetic pulses, I would not use on my head. I do believe it is possible to make a circuit and coils with a integrated control-loop. since its 50hz AC waveforms, it should be possible to plot each puls by a decent MCU and thereby introduce a safety mechanism which can ensure that such a devise is operating within the specified and approved waveform/magnetic field.
AC waveforms are not PEMF, PEMF are meant to be single direction only not alternating
Unfortunately depression is one of those conditions that is highly variable from one individual to another, and many forms are psychosomatic or self induced. People get upset, fixate on their problems and become depressed, just thinking about something else is often enough to relieve the condition. Some forms of depression have a biochemical/genetic basis and cannot be treated with suggestion. The article you cited does not appear to be a scientific article but rather one persons personal experience.
Again how was the frequency, waveform and intensity selected were there other groups tested with different parameters? where is the science?
Wow, there seems to be a lot of opinions her on if this is a sham or not. I know this is an old article, but… The one thing I notice is that there are a lot of people throwing shade, and saying look it up, only to not give any proof. Well as many have said above a simple search….
Zheng Y, Mei L, Li S, Ma T, Xia B, Hao Y, Gao X, Wei B, Wei Y, Jing D, Luo Z, Huang J. Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Alleviates Intervertebral Disc Degeneration by Activating Sirt1-Autophagy Signaling Network. Front Bioeng Biotechnol. 2022 Mar 21;10:853872. doi: 10.3389/fbioe.2022.853872. PMID: 35387300; PMCID: PMC8978825.
Alvarez LX, McCue J, Lam NK, Askin G, Fox PR. Effect of Targeted Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Therapy on Canine Postoperative Hemilaminectomy: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Clinical Trial. J Am Anim Hosp Assoc. 2019 Mar/Apr;55(2):83-91. doi: 10.5326/JAAHA-MS-6798. Epub 2019 Jan 17. PMID: 30776260.
Cadossi R., Massari L., Racine-Avila J., Aaron R. K. (2020). Pulsed Electromagnetic Field Stimulation of Bone Healing and Joint Preservation: Cellular Mechanisms of Skeletal Response. J. Am. Acad. Orthop. Surg. Glob. Res. Rev. 4, e1900155. 10.5435/JAAOSGlobal-D-19-00155
Chan AK, Tang X, Mummaneni NV, Coughlin D, Liebenberg E, Ouyang A, Dudli S, Lauricella M, Zhang N, Waldorff EI, Ryaby JT, Lotz JC. Pulsed electromagnetic fields reduce acute inflammation in the injured rat-tail intervertebral disc. JOR Spine. 2019 Dec 2;2(4):e1069. doi: 10.1002/jsp2.1069. PMID: 31891118; PMCID: PMC6920683.
Miller SL, Coughlin DG, Waldorff EI, Ryaby JT, Lotz JC. Pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) treatment reduces expression of genes associated with disc degeneration in human intervertebral disc cells. Spine J. 2016 Jun;16(6):770-6. doi: 10.1016/j.spinee.2016.01.003. Epub 2016 Jan 15. PMID: 26780754.
Ross CL, Zhou Y, McCall CE, Soker S, Criswell TL. The Use of Pulsed Electromagnetic Field to Modulate Inflammation and Improve Tissue Regeneration: A Review. Bioelectricity. 2019 Dec 1;1(4):247-259. doi: 10.1089/bioe.2019.0026. Epub 2019 Dec 12. PMID: 34471827; PMCID: PMC8370292.
I could go on, but don’t have time, there are literally hundreds of studies on both sides of the fence. I know it must be fun for non medical people to sit back and criticize others for “quack” practices because they do not believe in it, but please don’t say I searched Google and I found one article and it says this is fake (Menno). I am a physician, I am not sure if the bang is worth the buck on this. I am however willing to investigate and have the appropriate conversations. I have a friend who is 100% Sold on this and I have had a chance to speak to his patients, and they feel it helps. I know it is anecdotal, but the Native Americans chewed willow bark for pain. It wasn’t until 1971 that scientist figured out how Aspirin worked (willow bark has salicins from which the original aspirin was derived). So how about a conversation instead of beating your chest and declaiming that you are the smartest person on the page (Menno etal.).
Nuff said.
Dr Hz
What kind of physician are you? really?
I am a medical laboratory scientist with an hons degree in physiology and biochemistry and spent a decade working in medical research, and I too have read hundreds of the articles generated on PEMF across a variety of disciplines.
Yes you can find articles ranting about the benefits of PEMF therapy, usually by chiropractors, naturapaths and osteopaths, people known for their fraudulent claims. But the few clinical trials conducted have been “inconclusive more research required” that is not the reasearchers claiming that is works, it is them trying and not finding any proof that it does? Many clinical trials end without results being published, the usual reason for scientists conducting a trial and not publishing a result is because it failed. Nobody publishes failed experiments, they should but they don’t.
Do not recommend irradiating people with random frequencies and and intensities based on anecdotal claims, just because some traditional medicine passed a clinical trial, fails to take into account the 99% that turned out not just to be nonsense but dangerous nonsense
Show me the paper that explains how the frequencies and intensities were selected and I might change my mind
Stop making magical claims without proof and pretending that the people who ask for real science are the arrogant ones
“ Yes you can find articles ranting about the benefits of PEMF therapy, usually by chiropractors, naturapaths and osteopaths, people known for their fraudulent claims. But the few clinical trials conducted have been “inconclusive more research required” that is not the reasearchers claiming that is works, it is them trying and not finding any proof that it does? Many clinical trials end without results being published, the usual reason for scientists conducting a trial and not publishing a result is because it failed.”
It could be you’re right, but it could also be that big pharma and big medicine hasn’t figured how they can dollarize and control it yet. You really do a disservice to chiropractors, naturopaths and osteopaths who are truly trying to help people, not just make a buck. Why does good health have to cost so much? Why are there so few in medicine that actually want to help their fellow ailing man? (Apologies to those in medicine who are caught up in the medical machine but still trying to help others.)
I would love to see actual proof of mitochondrial improvement or ATP or whatever that makes this work. There are probably a billion people who’ve been wrecked by “medicine.” (Antibiotics, vaccines, shots) And the door has been burst open with these MRNA shots. I would trust a witch doctor, medicine man, shaman, before I would trust the CDC or WHO. Apologies to the real scientists out there.
“there are probably a billion people who’ve been wrecked by “medicine” source for this?
You are right, good health should not have to cost so much, unfortunately a large part of that bill are chiropractors, naturopaths and oestopaths who charge a fee similar to actual medicine but provide a product with no proven effectiveness, people waste their time and money trying to get help from people who are frauds and that does include all chiropractors, naturopaths and oestopaths etc, there is no science in what they do, no proven clinical trials, no real help, they are criminals taking money from sick desperate people.
On the other hand there is actual medicine, how many lives has penicillin saved? to date an estimated 200 million because it works, you do not have to believe in it to work.
Appendicitis, 1 in 15 people in the US get it, 95% who have the surgery are cured without complications (yes I looked it up) modern medicine works most of the time but surgery is expensive, operating theatres sterile equipment drugs, unfortunately the major cost are surgeons are they really worth $10k per hour? Why does the surgery cost so much? easy they are greedy sociopaths, but they are effective greedy sociopaths.
Put you money where your mouth is next time you are sick go and visit an osteopath, experience the “laying on of hands” that they say will cure you, it is literally faith healing, buy some holy water from a naturopath, have your verterbrae manipulated to cure your cancer, it does not work.
As for PEMF without evidence based proof it is no more effective than a glass of lemon juice, magic healing crystals or prayer, just because it looks like technology does not mean it is useful technology it is like the old sci fi movies with the banks of blinking lights and spinning tapes decks that were meant to be AI
It is not that it has not been tested, it has, it just failed
I’m wearing a DJO CMRV Bone Growth Stimulator. Paid for by medical insurance. Prescribed by the surgeon that fused 3 of my discs with 6 Ti screws and rods. Started wearing it 2 weeks after surgery ( insurance delays). Xrays after 1, 2 & 3 months showed acceptable bone growth. I’m “obese” and use nicotine, high risk for poor bone growth. Five months post surgery, I walk without pain. Bend and flex in hydrotherapy. People that don’t know me are amazed that i just had spinal fusion.
The DJO unit makes no noise, causes no sensations, and has all the appearance of a gimmicky steering wheel. I know that humans vibrate at various frequencies. I know that the human body can be influenced by vibrations, from UV to terahertz. My xray films show an ideal bone growth. Snake oil or not, I recovered quickly from serious destructive&reconstructive spinal surgery. /// I also hacked my durable medical equipment. Its programmed to run a single 30 min cycle per 24 hrs, unless the battery runs dry or “falls out”. Insert (reinsert) 9v batt at 28 minutes, and a fresh 30 min treatment cycle is available. This device self-disables permanently after 180 days, so thought I’d try and get more than 90 hours of treatment out of it.
The device has published frequencies and amplitudes. Mfg proposed a daily treatment duration and a fixed lifecycle to the FDA, and was accepted. The cost of the unit is based on mfg costs, prescriber overhead, salespersons profit and profit margin. Reusing/reprogramming for a second user is not in the business plan. No surprises for anyone familiar with the huge costs of bringing a new DME to market.
Does the steering wheel vibrator work? I’m walking, and confident that the screws in my spine are not going to blow out.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10379303/
https://academic.oup.com/milmed/article/188/11-12/e3711/7189756
“Case Report of Improvement in Long-COVID Symptoms in an Air Force Medic Treated With Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation Using Electro-Magnetic Brain Pulse Technique”
Another, one off, anecdotal story from china, this is not science it is pseudoscience
People who say “it worked for me” are anecdotal not science, and just becuase you got better while using it does not mean others will, or worse they will suffer from it. Stop publishing the one in a thousand that got better and omitting the 999 that did not.
The first article says electric and magnetic fields have an effect on the body, there just isn’t any evidence yet to say that it is a good effect, another play for more funding, not an endorsement.
It would be nice if the flashing box with the pretty lights could somehow cure you, it just is not supported by any of the clinical trials, that mysteriously ended without publishing a result. The reason you do not publish the results of a clinical trial is because it failed and you do not want the customers to know. There have been a dozen clinical trials of PEMF that I know of in the last decade, none of them published their results.
The one that came closest was treating pain with PEMF, pain is too subjective to be realistically evaluated.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10379303/#B114-ijms-24-11239
Now before you start on your “Needs more research…” argument. Take a second and read the full paper not just the abstract and the last paragraph. You will see continuously throughout the article that the authors bring up one thing that PEMF without a doubt in certain contexts does improve some conditions and causes shifts within cellular processes that are beneficial. . So you can hard stop right there, or you can continue on to see that it is FDA approved for healing fractures non-unions and a few other issues. FDA approved…..if that’s not enough for you. Consider this, there are tons of mainstream therapies being used right now that have failed to show any benefit in several clinical trials. This ranges from antibiotics to heart and cholesterol drugs to psychiatric drugs. Just because a study shows a treatment as ineffective does not mean that it is, it just means how they designed the study failed to show benefit. That does not mean it is ineffective it means it is ineffective based upon the primary outcome based upon whatever value they decided was going to be a marker of success in their study. That does not mean their chosen marker of success is valid or that it provides a complete picture of the effectiveness of the treatment in question. This is how a perfectly valid and effective treatment can end up being deemed ineffective. For example you could have a study of a cholesterol drug and the stated goal of the study could be to determine whether the drug reduces heart attack risk in a certain population of patient, but the primary indicator of that stated goal could be something ridiculous that the cholesterol drug really wouldn’t have much effect on say for example the cholesterol drug may only be useful for lowering LDL but may not have much effect on HDL. Well the study in question may use how much HDL increases as its primary indicator of success. In this study the drug in question is going to show to be ineffective but that does not mean that it is actually ineffective in treating high LDL cholesterol or that it doesn’t lower the risk of heart of attack it just means that it doesn’t lower the risk of heart attack based upon their stated indicator of heart attack risk.
So that is why its important to actually read more then the abstract of a study to understand whether the treatment in question is being used in a context that makes sense for said treatment. Its also important to note that studies are performed for several reasons and that may not always be to show benefit. In fact studies can be done for the exact opposite reason and if you think every study that is being done is done to benefit the population at large or are being done to prove a treatments effectiveness and are not being done to say for example purposefully make a valid treatment look worthless or several other reasons that have nothing to do with benefitting anyone but certain people or groups of people with deep pockets then there is no point in taking this conversation further, because you clearly have a goal in mind and that is not to have a rational and well balanced conversation about the effectiveness of a treatment that is FDA approved and shown effective for certain indications.
Finally to your argument against “Anecdotal evidence”, you want to dismiss all anecdotal evidence as worthless but that is a very narrow and dismissive stance to take. Any researcher will tell you that anecdotal evidence does have worth as it can guide where researchers should focus their efforts. 1 in 4 pharmaceutical drugs are based upon a plant or herbal treatment. There are numerous cases where a alternative treatment has been used in some form of traditional medicine and the pharma companies have caught wind of it and based upon the therapy in Alternative medicine they were able to take the plant in question analyze it figure out what component of it was showing benefit and then purify it or chemically alter it to get rid of some toxicity or side effects that prevented the natural treatment from being able to be used in large enough doses to make it more effective.
That is a perfect example of their being validity in anecdotal evidence. There are several other examples but to sit there and say all anecdotal evidence it worthless is a short sighted and closed minded position to take. If you have several people from all over the world all reporting benefit from a treatment to say that all those reports from 1,000s of people are worthless is ridiculous and is being purposefully blind and incredibly closed minded.
All these people quoting all these credentials. I am a doctor, I am the husband of a neuroscientist like that makes you some authority. I am a medical engineer blah blah blah. The fact is all of you did very little to prove your points about anything. You all said one thing or another but none of you brought up a single point about the fact that study design and power can drastically effect their outcome, and how that fact makes all the difference in the world as to why a study may or may not show effectiveness and why that matters in the context of any discussion regarding studies.
In fact if I didn’t know any better I would say all of you read the abstract and last paragraph of the studies you were rallying against and didn’t read any of the details because as with any study the devil is in the details and they are the most important part of any study. You cannot just say the study reached the conclusion “needs more research/inconclusive” and that means it is ineffective. Stating that shows how little you actually understand about how studies work. A study can reach that conclusion and the treatment in question may in fact have shown effectiveness in various aspects of the study but in the end their stated indicator came out ot be inconclusive so their end result was inconclusive needs more research. To be clear that in no way means the treatment in questions is ineffective in all aspects or a worthless treatment in only means its in effective in the context of the study based upon whatever the indicator of success was which may or may not make a lot of sense and may or may not be to benefit you or anyone but a small group of people.
stop trying to hack the human body, you are not qualified
this is pseudoscience
I do not care how many times you change your name, or the fake titles you give yourself, you are still just posting garbage
Just because the FDA lists it, does not mean the FDA has proof that it is effective, it is listed as an “alternative therapy” not medicine because there is no medical support for this.
You apparently do not understand the FDA process
You apparently do not understand “anecdotal”
anecdotal = adjective
(of an account) not necessarily true or reliable, because based on personal accounts rather than facts or research.
“while there was much anecdotal evidence there was little hard fact”
You do not understand “science”
What is a simple definition of science?
Our definition of science – The Science Council ~
Science is the pursuit and application of knowledge and understanding of the natural and social world following a systematic methodology based on evidence. Scientific methodology includes the following: Objective observation: Measurement and data (possibly although not necessarily using mathematics as a tool) Evidence.
You cannot statistically prove something with a sample size of one
You still have not addressed the fundatmental criticism
HOW ARE THE VALUES FOR FREQUENCY, FIELD STRENGTH AND WAVEFORM CHOSEN??????????
Where is the science, remember science, that show how these values are chosen, and any proof at any level that the values used are always beneficial and never detrimental?
PEMF is quackery.
A microvascular defect in specific types of tumors.