PEMF - The REALLY Big Lie When it Comes to Power
Detailed Response to The Big Lies of in the video by Marcus Freudenmann of Truly Heal
I’ve been getting a lot of questions lately about a popular video on YouTube called PEMF – The Big Lie when it comes to Power. And it’s put together by Marcus at Truly Heal. Unfortunately, there’s a lot of untrue and inaccurate statement that are made about low-intensity systems, like the iMRS-2000. I want to talk about that in this video to clarify some of these inaccuracies and, at times, scientifically wrong statements.
Before I begin I do want to say that Marcus and Truly Heal is doing a lot of great work in encouraging people to look into natural healing approaches ozone therapy, detox protocols, sauna therapy, cleaning up your home environment, etc. So they are doing a lot of great work, but when it comes to PEMF I think the information they are giving is flat-out wrong.
Before I begin I do want to say that Marcus and Truly Heal is doing a lot of great work in encouraging people to look into natural healing approaches ozone therapy, detox protocols, sauna therapy, cleaning up your home environment, etc. So they are doing a lot of great work, but when it comes to PEMF I think the information they are giving is flat-out wrong.
1) Laying on a low intensity PEMF is NOT the same as laying on the Grass. (PROOF IN VIDEO BELOW)
Let’s just get right into it by going through, in order as it appears in his video, some of the statements that are inaccurate or false about low-intensity systems. The first thing he says is that laying on a low-intensity system like iMRS-2000 is pretty much the same as laying on the grass. This is not true.
His reasoning is that the static field of the Earth is roughly in the intensity ranges of the iMRS mat or the beam of other low-intensity systems. Yes, the intensities are the same however we are talking about two different types of energy. One is a DC static field, and the other is a pulsating magnetic field. So, you need to compare apples to apples. This is not the same as laying on the grass.
In fact, I’ve put together quite a while back a demonstration to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt using a very sensitive magnetic field detector to show you that laying on the grass is not the same as laying on a low-intensity PEMF mat. The magnetic flux is much stronger, more concentrated, and measurably different. I have a link below the video you can watch that. And please do if you have any doubts on thinking that a low intensity system is the same as laying on the grass.
His reasoning is that the static field of the Earth is roughly in the intensity ranges of the iMRS mat or the beam of other low-intensity systems. Yes, the intensities are the same however we are talking about two different types of energy. One is a DC static field, and the other is a pulsating magnetic field. So, you need to compare apples to apples. This is not the same as laying on the grass.
In fact, I’ve put together quite a while back a demonstration to prove beyond a shadow of a doubt using a very sensitive magnetic field detector to show you that laying on the grass is not the same as laying on a low-intensity PEMF mat. The magnetic flux is much stronger, more concentrated, and measurably different. I have a link below the video you can watch that. And please do if you have any doubts on thinking that a low intensity system is the same as laying on the grass.
Video PROOF that iMRS 2000 is not the same as laying on the grass.
Just to point out too, the Earth does have a pulsating magnetic field. It’s called the Schumann Resonance. That frequency is only 1 pico-tesla. In fact, it’s so weak that you need an antenna, like a sensor, to pick it up. Because we know the Schumann Resonance is very important to life on Earth, life itself has these amplifiers and very finely tuned antenna that can respond to frequency.
I always tell people that the key is frequency, not intensity. Frequency resonance is what heals the body; not intensity. You do need enough intensity to penetrate through the body, but as we’ll see, the IMRS, the Bemer, and other low intensity systems give you plenty of intensity to go all the way through.
I always tell people that the key is frequency, not intensity. Frequency resonance is what heals the body; not intensity. You do need enough intensity to penetrate through the body, but as we’ll see, the IMRS, the Bemer, and other low intensity systems give you plenty of intensity to go all the way through.
2) Field Does Not Drop Off by a 1/2 one inch Above (WAY OFF!!) - PROOF IN VIDEO BELOW
Which brings us to the next statement that Marcus says. He talks about in the video, PEMF the Big Lie, on the iMRS, and these are his exact words, “One inch above the iMRS mat, you’re only getting one-half the intensity as at the surface.” Two inches above you get a quarter; three inches above is only one-ninth. This is just BAD, BAD, science. Where did he get those numbers? Actually, I kind of know where he got the numbers. He’s using an inverse square (1/R2), but he’s using inches, not meters! First of all, Coulomb’s Law and the gravitational law of Newton, are inverse square forces. But you have to use meters, because all the units and constants in the equations are S-I units, and the S-I unit for strength is meters. So if you say an inch is one-half, and two inches is a fourth, and three inches is a ninth, you can tell he’s using the 1/R2 drop-off. But he’s using inches not meters! Again, just bad science. That’s bad dimensional analysis.
Secondly, he’s using the wrong equation altogether. Coulomb’s law measures electric field. The Biot Savart law is the magnetic field equivalent of Coulomb’s law. That’s the equation you need to measure the intensity of a magnetic field above the surface of a coil, a current loop. I did the calculations. You can look up the equation and do them yourself. One foot above just one coil is 20% of the surface. Six inches above is 55%. Three inches above is 83%. And one inch above is 98% (not one-half). These numbers are independent of the intensity. These drop-off percentages to even the high intensity ringer devices. Because the intensity is higher, it will still be higher, but the percent drop-off (that’s what he’s talking about) is the same. Same thing goes for Coulomb’s Law and the gravitational law. It doesn’t matter the mass or the charge. It’s still a 1/R2 drop-off. Just very bad science.
Even with ONE coil the calculations are as follows
1 foot above one coil intensity is 19% of surface
6 inches above one coil intensity is 55% of surface
3 inches above one coil intensity is 83% of surface
1 inche above one coil intensity is 98% of surface (NOT 1/2 as Marcus says).
But because the field is additive, the overall percentage drop-off IS LESS. I wanted to show EVEN FOR ONE loop that his numbers were still WAY WAY off.
NOTE - iMRS which has 6 coils each, 8.5 inches in diameter = .2159 meters = R in the equation above. The numbers do change for different values of R.
Anyone can use the equation below and get these numbers (set Z=0 for surface and divide two equations - you'll find the ratio from Z above to surface DOES NOT depend on anything but the radius of the coil and the distance Z above. Keep in mind there are SIX coils which are additive so even though the field goes down a little in between you have to ADD all the coils contribution. This is a very complicated calculation, but using one coil we can easily see the BAD Science involved.
Interestingly These ratios apply to PEMF devices of ANY INTENSITY, including high intensity... Again Marcus needs a science refresher course.
I did a video demonstration to really show you beyond a shadow of a doubt, that low-intensity PEMF, like the iMRS-2000, not only has a significant intensity above the body, like at a foot above, but I hold a MicMag Handy, which is a very sensitive magnetic field detector. Three feet above, and you can still see a very significant intensity. So please, please watch that video. It’s a video demonstration in real time.
Secondly, he’s using the wrong equation altogether. Coulomb’s law measures electric field. The Biot Savart law is the magnetic field equivalent of Coulomb’s law. That’s the equation you need to measure the intensity of a magnetic field above the surface of a coil, a current loop. I did the calculations. You can look up the equation and do them yourself. One foot above just one coil is 20% of the surface. Six inches above is 55%. Three inches above is 83%. And one inch above is 98% (not one-half). These numbers are independent of the intensity. These drop-off percentages to even the high intensity ringer devices. Because the intensity is higher, it will still be higher, but the percent drop-off (that’s what he’s talking about) is the same. Same thing goes for Coulomb’s Law and the gravitational law. It doesn’t matter the mass or the charge. It’s still a 1/R2 drop-off. Just very bad science.
Even with ONE coil the calculations are as follows
1 foot above one coil intensity is 19% of surface
6 inches above one coil intensity is 55% of surface
3 inches above one coil intensity is 83% of surface
1 inche above one coil intensity is 98% of surface (NOT 1/2 as Marcus says).
But because the field is additive, the overall percentage drop-off IS LESS. I wanted to show EVEN FOR ONE loop that his numbers were still WAY WAY off.
NOTE - iMRS which has 6 coils each, 8.5 inches in diameter = .2159 meters = R in the equation above. The numbers do change for different values of R.
Anyone can use the equation below and get these numbers (set Z=0 for surface and divide two equations - you'll find the ratio from Z above to surface DOES NOT depend on anything but the radius of the coil and the distance Z above. Keep in mind there are SIX coils which are additive so even though the field goes down a little in between you have to ADD all the coils contribution. This is a very complicated calculation, but using one coil we can easily see the BAD Science involved.
Interestingly These ratios apply to PEMF devices of ANY INTENSITY, including high intensity... Again Marcus needs a science refresher course.
I did a video demonstration to really show you beyond a shadow of a doubt, that low-intensity PEMF, like the iMRS-2000, not only has a significant intensity above the body, like at a foot above, but I hold a MicMag Handy, which is a very sensitive magnetic field detector. Three feet above, and you can still see a very significant intensity. So please, please watch that video. It’s a video demonstration in real time.
3) Frequencies Needed are ideally 0-50 Hz CORRECT
The next thing he talks about is the frequencies which are best used for PEMF. And actually I agree with him here. We are in total agreement that 0-50 Hz (I kind of like 0-30 Hz better) that low frequency is the way to go. One of the devices he sells (the Curatron), I think the intensities and the waveforms are off, but you do use lower frequencies.
However some of the devices he recommends on his website, like the DCM 3500, are the ringer devices that have a whole slew of higher frequencies. They use Tesla coils and capacitor discharge, so you get a lot of high frequencies mixed in. Even if the primary pulse (you hear the click, click, click) can be regulated to a lower pulse, each of those pulses is blasting out a lot of higher frequencies. In general, what he says about frequencies I do agree with. Both the iMRS-200 and the Bemer and other popular low intensity systems use the lower frequencies.
However some of the devices he recommends on his website, like the DCM 3500, are the ringer devices that have a whole slew of higher frequencies. They use Tesla coils and capacitor discharge, so you get a lot of high frequencies mixed in. Even if the primary pulse (you hear the click, click, click) can be regulated to a lower pulse, each of those pulses is blasting out a lot of higher frequencies. In general, what he says about frequencies I do agree with. Both the iMRS-200 and the Bemer and other popular low intensity systems use the lower frequencies.
4) Variation of Frequencies - Yes.
Variation of frequencies. He talks about importance of varying the frequencies. I also agree. And I would add to that, to vary the intensity as well and to switch polarity because there are other things you can do to help the body to prevent acclimation.
As a little aside, the iMRS-2000 has something that no other PEMF device has; heart-rate variability biofeedback. And that will actually adjust the intensity automatically to give you pretty much a unique session every time you it. That’s one of the things you don’t get with the higher-intensity systems.
As a little aside, the iMRS-2000 has something that no other PEMF device has; heart-rate variability biofeedback. And that will actually adjust the intensity automatically to give you pretty much a unique session every time you it. That’s one of the things you don’t get with the higher-intensity systems.
5) Sine wave is what is found in Nature - FALSE!
The next thing he talks about in his video is that a sine wave is what is found in nature. I have some images of lightening strikes, and also a plot of the Schumann resonance and its higher harmonics. And you can clearly see it’s not just a smooth sine wave. There are some spikes, especially at the 7.83. It’s a very rapid rise and fall spike. It’s not a smooth sine wave. And when you think about it, because the Schumann resonance comes from lightning strikes, which are anything but smooth (they are very jagged – very chaotic – very random). There’s no smooth sine wave to be found at all. That’s just a false statement about the natural Earth’s frequencies. They are not smooth sine waves. They are more a rapid rise and fall.
And he agrees with this when he talks about the ringer devices or the high intensity systems. He says it’s kind of like taking a club and hitting all the cells at the same time. And that is what you get from a rapid rise and fall. So we’re in total agreement on that statement. But he sells two different units on his website. One has a smooth sine wave and the other has a rapid rise and fall. I’ll always recommend the rapid rise and fall. Because that’s what gives you the greatest cellular impulse. I’ve done many other videos to explain this point. But I just want to respond that the sine wave is not what’s found in nature.
And he agrees with this when he talks about the ringer devices or the high intensity systems. He says it’s kind of like taking a club and hitting all the cells at the same time. And that is what you get from a rapid rise and fall. So we’re in total agreement on that statement. But he sells two different units on his website. One has a smooth sine wave and the other has a rapid rise and fall. I’ll always recommend the rapid rise and fall. Because that’s what gives you the greatest cellular impulse. I’ve done many other videos to explain this point. But I just want to respond that the sine wave is not what’s found in nature.
6) Marcus Gives Bogus and Inaccurate Testing of iMRS with Live Blood.
Total Different than what Marcus is Showing, makes you wonder did he test the iMRS with the unitl unplugged?
Why would we trust these tests when he sells what he is recommending. Tests can be EASILY doctored when done with financial interests.
Why would we trust these tests when he sells what he is recommending. Tests can be EASILY doctored when done with financial interests.
Those before and afters using live blood microscopy of the iMRS are bogus.
I have worked with the MRS 2000 and iMRS for over six years and we have had DOZENS of health practitioners that do live blood microscopy before and afters and we have had only positive results.
Look at the link below
http://www.magdahavas.com/dr-oz-on-pemf-therapy-and-pain-control/
Dr Magdahavas is a non-biased source of PEMF info and she does not sell any brand. She herself did before and after on her own blood and had amazing results with the MRS 2000 (new iMRS uses exact same energies).
Also the whole more is better approach is was shown to be NOT true in the NASA studies and many other studies. It's the allopathic mentality, when actually the body responds
It's not the same as laying in the grass.
Everything you say is the opposite of the NASA study, as far as the
One of the claims made by those who sell the MRS 2000 or the iMRS (Intelligent Magnetic Resonance Stimulation) system is that this technology helps blood circulation by keeping blood cells from sticking together. I wanted to know if this claim was true, so I tested myself.
I did a live blood analysis after I worked on a computer. Then tested my blood after using the MRS 2000 mat for 8 minutes on a sensitive setting (low intensity) and found–to my surprise–that my blood cells looked much healthier. They were no longer sticking together. See slides 1 and 2 below. I repeated this several times and found virtually identical results. This was encouraging.
I have worked with the MRS 2000 and iMRS for over six years and we have had DOZENS of health practitioners that do live blood microscopy before and afters and we have had only positive results.
Look at the link below
http://www.magdahavas.com/dr-oz-on-pemf-therapy-and-pain-control/
Dr Magdahavas is a non-biased source of PEMF info and she does not sell any brand. She herself did before and after on her own blood and had amazing results with the MRS 2000 (new iMRS uses exact same energies).
Also the whole more is better approach is was shown to be NOT true in the NASA studies and many other studies. It's the allopathic mentality, when actually the body responds
It's not the same as laying in the grass.
Everything you say is the opposite of the NASA study, as far as the
One of the claims made by those who sell the MRS 2000 or the iMRS (Intelligent Magnetic Resonance Stimulation) system is that this technology helps blood circulation by keeping blood cells from sticking together. I wanted to know if this claim was true, so I tested myself.
I did a live blood analysis after I worked on a computer. Then tested my blood after using the MRS 2000 mat for 8 minutes on a sensitive setting (low intensity) and found–to my surprise–that my blood cells looked much healthier. They were no longer sticking together. See slides 1 and 2 below. I repeated this several times and found virtually identical results. This was encouraging.
"REAL" Live Blood before and after with MRS 2000/iMRS 2000
1) Here is a NEW Live Blood Microscopy Analysis from Liz Davis.
https://youtu.be/-REAFnRBcNg
2) Also Check out Dr Phil McAllistors before and after live blood on the MRS 2000 (0:50 into video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJrALnBzsfg
3) Below that is Sherry Beitzels Before and After.
https://youtu.be/R5FqoG7ACFI
Total Different than what Marcus is Showing, makes you wonder did he test the iMRS with the unitl unplugged?
Why would we trust these tests when he sells what he is recommending. Tests can be EASILY doctored when done with financial interests.
And there are many others very postive before and afters we have with trained live blood analysis practitioners.
https://youtu.be/-REAFnRBcNg
2) Also Check out Dr Phil McAllistors before and after live blood on the MRS 2000 (0:50 into video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kJrALnBzsfg
3) Below that is Sherry Beitzels Before and After.
https://youtu.be/R5FqoG7ACFI
Total Different than what Marcus is Showing, makes you wonder did he test the iMRS with the unitl unplugged?
Why would we trust these tests when he sells what he is recommending. Tests can be EASILY doctored when done with financial interests.
And there are many others very postive before and afters we have with trained live blood analysis practitioners.
3 Live Blood Videos Mentioned Above... Very POWERFUL! See what just 8 minutes with the iMRS can do!
7) iMRS has More Testimonials Than High Intensity. Definitely Not a placebo, we have animal testimonials also.
NOT a placebo, we have animals testimonials and testimonials with before and after MRIs, etc.
We have a LOT of RESULTS… Check out our playlist of over 80 video testimonials.
The iMRS and other low intensity devices like the Bemer (also low intensity), have MANY life changing healing stories. Thousands. They have been around longer than these new generation PAP-IMI like devices and have a longer history of success. I have personally collected over 80 powerful video testimonials with the iMRS and hundreds of written and daily talk to people who have life changing stories (see youtube.com/imrs2000) including Cancer, parkinson , M.S., stroke, kidney failure, pain of all forms, Lyme, dental, sleep, animal, Muscular Dystrophy, chronic fatigue, diabetes, wound healing, tinnitus and many others.
Check out the two playlist below with over 90 powerful video testimonials with the iMRS.
Many are life changing!!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwM1JFCyRaOXao6vTWzzEvO--48_qPfKT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwM1JFCyRaOVD7ghZQvfwfgxfKLdpAOdB
We have a LOT of RESULTS… Check out our playlist of over 80 video testimonials.
The iMRS and other low intensity devices like the Bemer (also low intensity), have MANY life changing healing stories. Thousands. They have been around longer than these new generation PAP-IMI like devices and have a longer history of success. I have personally collected over 80 powerful video testimonials with the iMRS and hundreds of written and daily talk to people who have life changing stories (see youtube.com/imrs2000) including Cancer, parkinson , M.S., stroke, kidney failure, pain of all forms, Lyme, dental, sleep, animal, Muscular Dystrophy, chronic fatigue, diabetes, wound healing, tinnitus and many others.
Check out the two playlist below with over 90 powerful video testimonials with the iMRS.
Many are life changing!!
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwM1JFCyRaOXao6vTWzzEvO--48_qPfKT
https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLwM1JFCyRaOVD7ghZQvfwfgxfKLdpAOdB
8) iMRS does not use studies from High Intensity Machines
iMRS does NOT use studies from high intensity machines... iMRS and previous MRS 2000 have double blind studies on PUB Med and there is a whole book by Christian Thuile with hundreds of clinical case studies. The iGUIDE database of 284 conditions is based on this clinical data going back to the late 1990's. Plus I have many other studies I can send anyone if they email me.
Also check out the 4 year Nasa study which used ONLY 10 uT intensity (very low) to get maximal results.
NASA 4-year collaborative study on the efficacy of electromagnetic fields to stimulate growth and repair in mammalian tissues.
CHIEF INVESTIGATOR:Thomas J. Goodwin, Ph.D. Lynden B Johnson Space Center
When it comes to research studies, it does not get any better than NASA. Of more than 10,000 research papers and 2000 plus double blind studies on PEMF therapy; none was more thorough and conclusive as the 4 year NASA study lead by Dr. Thomas Goodwin, PhD, on the ability of PEMF to improve the growth and repair of tissues in mammals.
Without getting into technical details of the study, I will summarize and share the main benefits of PEMF therapy that the NASA study conclusively demonstrated as well as the exact type of energy, frequency, intensity and waveform used.
Specifically, NASA used the exact PEMF parameters below:
Rapid Time Varying Waveform - Specifically the Squarewave (sawtooth also fits this criteria)
Low Frequency: 10 Hz (close to the frequencies of earth)
Low Intensity: ~10-200 milligauss (1 - 20 microtesla) which is even less than the strength of the earth’s magnetic field (33 - 66 microtesla).
Additionally NASA found that slowly varying (millisecond pulse, sine wave), non-varying (static magnetic) had little or no effect.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030075722.pdf
Also check out the 4 year Nasa study which used ONLY 10 uT intensity (very low) to get maximal results.
NASA 4-year collaborative study on the efficacy of electromagnetic fields to stimulate growth and repair in mammalian tissues.
CHIEF INVESTIGATOR:Thomas J. Goodwin, Ph.D. Lynden B Johnson Space Center
When it comes to research studies, it does not get any better than NASA. Of more than 10,000 research papers and 2000 plus double blind studies on PEMF therapy; none was more thorough and conclusive as the 4 year NASA study lead by Dr. Thomas Goodwin, PhD, on the ability of PEMF to improve the growth and repair of tissues in mammals.
Without getting into technical details of the study, I will summarize and share the main benefits of PEMF therapy that the NASA study conclusively demonstrated as well as the exact type of energy, frequency, intensity and waveform used.
Specifically, NASA used the exact PEMF parameters below:
Rapid Time Varying Waveform - Specifically the Squarewave (sawtooth also fits this criteria)
Low Frequency: 10 Hz (close to the frequencies of earth)
Low Intensity: ~10-200 milligauss (1 - 20 microtesla) which is even less than the strength of the earth’s magnetic field (33 - 66 microtesla).
Additionally NASA found that slowly varying (millisecond pulse, sine wave), non-varying (static magnetic) had little or no effect.
https://ntrs.nasa.gov/archive/nasa/casi.ntrs.nasa.gov/20030075722.pdf
9) iMRS is used in clinics
You say you saw no low power PEMF in clinics. I work with clinics DAILY that use the iMRS.. Hundreds. So that is just not true.
10) iMRS 2000 is Not MLM
Marcus says the iMRS is sold via MLM but that is FALSE. Simply not true. It is sold through direct marketing like most other products. The company Swiss Bionic has another product called the Omnium1 that IS sold via MLM. But the two are separate businesses.