Stronger is not better. Strong magnetic fields are potentially dangerous. They are not natural. They are not physiologic. They are not effacious. MFT works 100% of the time when you have the right signal. Target various domains and structure.
If you use magnets of thousands of gauss is NOT natural
Objective in healing (Hippocratic oath) - Do no harm. Use the safest modality imaginable.
After Talking to a Man Named Joe who IS Crippled from Using High Intensity PEMF, and directly hearing of another literally the next day, I am on a Mission to put these DANGEROUS HIGH INTENSITY PEMF SYSTEMS OUT OF BUSINESS FOR HOME USE.
The ONLY PLACE these systems should be is in a practitioners office for short term use under professional guidance.
This Page is a start to Collect Studies that PROVE the DANGERS OF HIGH INTENSITY PEMF SYSTEMS.
MUCH MORE COMING SOON!!
***ADD
World Health Organization Safety levels are 100 uT or 1 Gauss @ 50 Hz.
If you use magnets of thousands of gauss is NOT natural
Objective in healing (Hippocratic oath) - Do no harm. Use the safest modality imaginable.
After Talking to a Man Named Joe who IS Crippled from Using High Intensity PEMF, and directly hearing of another literally the next day, I am on a Mission to put these DANGEROUS HIGH INTENSITY PEMF SYSTEMS OUT OF BUSINESS FOR HOME USE.
The ONLY PLACE these systems should be is in a practitioners office for short term use under professional guidance.
This Page is a start to Collect Studies that PROVE the DANGERS OF HIGH INTENSITY PEMF SYSTEMS.
MUCH MORE COMING SOON!!
***ADD
World Health Organization Safety levels are 100 uT or 1 Gauss @ 50 Hz.
Safety
Almost all PEMF products are generally not rated for safety. It is unclear if they have ever done any testing. It's unclear whether they have safe operating zones and guidelines.
The iMRS 2000, along with the BEMER, QRS, ICES,Medithera and a few others rates WELL within the ICNIRP safe range. Some high intensity devices you can turn down to safe zones, but then WHY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE???
ALL HIGH INTENSITY DEVICES ARE IN THE RED ZONE - ALL OF THEM!!!
ICNIRP stands for the international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection.
This generally relates to the allowable environmental exposures that people can have to background levels of non-ionizing radiation like radio waves (not x-rays, or nuclear radiation, that is ionizing).
The ICNIRP guidelines are widely used internationally to determine what levels of background radio frequency radiation are acceptable for long term exposure.
The red zone in the chart in this chart is considered the danger zone, that won't necessary hurt you, but there is some scientific reason to believe that it is not good to be in an environment with those levels of radiation.
That is a combination of the strength of the magnetic field and the frequency.
As the magnetic field strength goes up or the frequency goes up, the radiation becomes potentially more dangerous.
Yellow area is the uncertain zone. And the green area is considered absolutely safe meaning there is no scientific evidence that there would be any harm done to a biological system with that level of background radio frequency energy.
See below for more on the ICNIRP.
Almost all PEMF products are generally not rated for safety. It is unclear if they have ever done any testing. It's unclear whether they have safe operating zones and guidelines.
The iMRS 2000, along with the BEMER, QRS, ICES,Medithera and a few others rates WELL within the ICNIRP safe range. Some high intensity devices you can turn down to safe zones, but then WHY PAY MORE IN THE FIRST PLACE???
ALL HIGH INTENSITY DEVICES ARE IN THE RED ZONE - ALL OF THEM!!!
ICNIRP stands for the international commission on non-ionizing radiation protection.
This generally relates to the allowable environmental exposures that people can have to background levels of non-ionizing radiation like radio waves (not x-rays, or nuclear radiation, that is ionizing).
The ICNIRP guidelines are widely used internationally to determine what levels of background radio frequency radiation are acceptable for long term exposure.
The red zone in the chart in this chart is considered the danger zone, that won't necessary hurt you, but there is some scientific reason to believe that it is not good to be in an environment with those levels of radiation.
That is a combination of the strength of the magnetic field and the frequency.
As the magnetic field strength goes up or the frequency goes up, the radiation becomes potentially more dangerous.
Yellow area is the uncertain zone. And the green area is considered absolutely safe meaning there is no scientific evidence that there would be any harm done to a biological system with that level of background radio frequency energy.
See below for more on the ICNIRP.
While its true that MRI machines go up this high, but you would not want to get an MRI every day!
The DIN Institute of Standards in Germany - 400 uT
But even better recommendations (because frequency is also taken into effect) are given by the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON‐IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP is a world-wide authority on safety related to elec- tromagnetic energy. The EU and FDA both rely on their findings.
According to the ICNIRP, the limiting values for safety of time varying PEMF are dependent on both the frequency (usually measureed in Hz) and the flux density (or Intensity - measured in microtesla).
With Frequencies 0-25 Hz, up to 5000uT is safe
But if frequency above 25 Hz, than anything over 5uT is problematic (that’s weaker than earth’s magnetic field).
The higher the applied frequency the lower the limit value for intensity that is safe. This means, if you apply a very low frequency (like the earth fre- quency range 1-25 Hz) you are allowed to apply higher intensities. See link below.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
PAGE 511 – table 7
The Charts below shows Germany (ICNIRP) is one of the Few countries with significant data on lower frequency high intensity being dangerous too. The link below is technical, but clearly shows you should not be using more than 1-5 gauss for frequencies above 10 Hz and MOST pemf devices are operating at 10 hertz or above.
AVOID HIGH INTENSITY PEMF LIKE THE PLAGUE. NOT SAFE FOR DAILY USE. If it has higher frequencies that REALLY AVOID!!
IF you get close to 1 hz, the body CAN tolerate more because that is nearly equivalent to a static field.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
Again the key is frequency resonance, not intensity, so it's best to avoid these machines unless under direct supervisor of a healthcare professional trained in using these devices.
The DIN Institute of Standards in Germany - 400 uT
But even better recommendations (because frequency is also taken into effect) are given by the INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION ON NON‐IONIZING RADIATION PROTECTION (ICNIRP). The ICNIRP is a world-wide authority on safety related to elec- tromagnetic energy. The EU and FDA both rely on their findings.
According to the ICNIRP, the limiting values for safety of time varying PEMF are dependent on both the frequency (usually measureed in Hz) and the flux density (or Intensity - measured in microtesla).
With Frequencies 0-25 Hz, up to 5000uT is safe
But if frequency above 25 Hz, than anything over 5uT is problematic (that’s weaker than earth’s magnetic field).
The higher the applied frequency the lower the limit value for intensity that is safe. This means, if you apply a very low frequency (like the earth fre- quency range 1-25 Hz) you are allowed to apply higher intensities. See link below.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
PAGE 511 – table 7
The Charts below shows Germany (ICNIRP) is one of the Few countries with significant data on lower frequency high intensity being dangerous too. The link below is technical, but clearly shows you should not be using more than 1-5 gauss for frequencies above 10 Hz and MOST pemf devices are operating at 10 hertz or above.
AVOID HIGH INTENSITY PEMF LIKE THE PLAGUE. NOT SAFE FOR DAILY USE. If it has higher frequencies that REALLY AVOID!!
IF you get close to 1 hz, the body CAN tolerate more because that is nearly equivalent to a static field.
http://www.icnirp.org/cms/upload/publications/ICNIRPemfgdl.pdf
Again the key is frequency resonance, not intensity, so it's best to avoid these machines unless under direct supervisor of a healthcare professional trained in using these devices.
All these high voltage machines are basically modeled after the original Papimi PEMF device, which was outlawed by the FDA in 2005. The man behind that fraud is Panos Pappas, a math professor from Athens, Greece, who invented the PAP-IMI. See the seattle times article in the link in the description of the video.
These devices are sold in different packing and under various names and are clones of the old PAP-IMI devices. They are all easy to identify because they come in a big brief with large circular plastic tube-like applicators.
These papimi-like machines are VERY expensive starting at about $10,000 and going up in price to over $30,000. They use VERY HIGH intensity coils shooting "bursts" of pulsed magnetic fields for just microseconds.
Also its important to note that the random discharges of energy create frequency spectrum containing both good and harmful PEMF frequencies.
Unfortunately the dangerous radio and microwave frequencies similar to cell phones, cordless phones, etc. are present too and at very high intensities (upwards to 30,000 volts and over one Tesla magnetic field strengths).
So basically its like sitting next to a high voltage power line. I personally know a couple health practitioners that STOPPED using these devices because of the irritating nature of high voltage energies.
These systems are VERY expensive and use intensities that are potentially dangerous if not under expert guidance. In my opinion, sick and weak people should steer clear of these high voltage machines. Even healthy people and athletes should only work with a trained practitioner.
It is worthwhile reading the article below to see the potential dangers of these high intensity machines that were all inspired by the Pap-imi
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/public-never-warned-about-dangerous-device/
Another death
When a 68-year-old woman died of a heart attack during treatment, Pappas and Wallach feared that the FDA would shut down the studyWith the PAP-IMI prohibited from import into the U.S., makers of similar devices have seized its market.Mike Davis, president of PEMF Systems in Las Vegas, designed a smaller, similar version of the PAP-IMI. His $20,000 device, the size of a small suitcase, is sold under a variety of names, including Magnapulse, Davis said. PEMF is not registered with the FDA. Davis said he plans to get approval to use the machines in a clinical study.
These devices are sold in different packing and under various names and are clones of the old PAP-IMI devices. They are all easy to identify because they come in a big brief with large circular plastic tube-like applicators.
These papimi-like machines are VERY expensive starting at about $10,000 and going up in price to over $30,000. They use VERY HIGH intensity coils shooting "bursts" of pulsed magnetic fields for just microseconds.
Also its important to note that the random discharges of energy create frequency spectrum containing both good and harmful PEMF frequencies.
Unfortunately the dangerous radio and microwave frequencies similar to cell phones, cordless phones, etc. are present too and at very high intensities (upwards to 30,000 volts and over one Tesla magnetic field strengths).
So basically its like sitting next to a high voltage power line. I personally know a couple health practitioners that STOPPED using these devices because of the irritating nature of high voltage energies.
These systems are VERY expensive and use intensities that are potentially dangerous if not under expert guidance. In my opinion, sick and weak people should steer clear of these high voltage machines. Even healthy people and athletes should only work with a trained practitioner.
It is worthwhile reading the article below to see the potential dangers of these high intensity machines that were all inspired by the Pap-imi
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/public-never-warned-about-dangerous-device/
Another death
When a 68-year-old woman died of a heart attack during treatment, Pappas and Wallach feared that the FDA would shut down the studyWith the PAP-IMI prohibited from import into the U.S., makers of similar devices have seized its market.Mike Davis, president of PEMF Systems in Las Vegas, designed a smaller, similar version of the PAP-IMI. His $20,000 device, the size of a small suitcase, is sold under a variety of names, including Magnapulse, Davis said. PEMF is not registered with the FDA. Davis said he plans to get approval to use the machines in a clinical study.
Biomedicial researchers have been testing the use of pulsing magnetic fields originating outside the body to induce microcurrents within tissues to stimulate healing.
A consistent observation is that triggering a cellular response requires the applicaton of energy in a very narrow range of frequencies and intensities. Extensive research on fracture non-unions using low intensity and frequency.
1) Microampere currents induced from outside the body restart the healing process by recruiting bone-forming cells in a manner similar to a natural repair response. Field effects are highly specific and confined to a narrow power frequency window. To high an induced current stimulates necrosis rather than repair! And the characteristics of a bone healing pulse are different from those of an osteonecrosis pulse. (Oschman Energy medicine pg 271).
Medical researchers have documented a cascade of signal transduction processes from the cell membrane to the nucleus and on to the genetic material that are facilitated by PEMF therapies (Bassett 1995). High intensity PEMF and high frequency electrosmog appear to have negative effects along the same pathways! (Oschman pf 271).
In General, organisms are poised to respond to minute 'whispers' in the electromagnetic environment. Bassett (1995) suggested an analogy between the arrays of bone cells in the osteon and the phased arrays of radio telescope antennas.
Radio telescope arrays enable astrophysicists to detect extremely weak electromagnetic signals from millions, even billions of light years away.
Bassett suggested that tissues extract information from fields originating outside the body by a process akin to that involved in radio astronomy.
These crystalline arrays are throughout the whole body so this applies NOT just to bone...
MORE IS NOT NECESSSARY!! The Body can tune to weak signals!!
A consistent observation is that triggering a cellular response requires the applicaton of energy in a very narrow range of frequencies and intensities. Extensive research on fracture non-unions using low intensity and frequency.
1) Microampere currents induced from outside the body restart the healing process by recruiting bone-forming cells in a manner similar to a natural repair response. Field effects are highly specific and confined to a narrow power frequency window. To high an induced current stimulates necrosis rather than repair! And the characteristics of a bone healing pulse are different from those of an osteonecrosis pulse. (Oschman Energy medicine pg 271).
Medical researchers have documented a cascade of signal transduction processes from the cell membrane to the nucleus and on to the genetic material that are facilitated by PEMF therapies (Bassett 1995). High intensity PEMF and high frequency electrosmog appear to have negative effects along the same pathways! (Oschman pf 271).
In General, organisms are poised to respond to minute 'whispers' in the electromagnetic environment. Bassett (1995) suggested an analogy between the arrays of bone cells in the osteon and the phased arrays of radio telescope antennas.
Radio telescope arrays enable astrophysicists to detect extremely weak electromagnetic signals from millions, even billions of light years away.
Bassett suggested that tissues extract information from fields originating outside the body by a process akin to that involved in radio astronomy.
These crystalline arrays are throughout the whole body so this applies NOT just to bone...
MORE IS NOT NECESSSARY!! The Body can tune to weak signals!!
|
|
Further Proof MORE is not better
2) 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”).
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.
3) Research shows that the induced field must be small or it will not work (Rubin 1989).
Rubin, C. T., K. J. McLeod, et al. (1989). Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(3): 411-7.
4) 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.
5) Dr Jerry Jacobson - Cooper union in NY study on malignant melanoma cells @4T. Malignant melanoma - saw cells disperse and metastasize. Stronger is not better.
2) 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”).
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.
3) Research shows that the induced field must be small or it will not work (Rubin 1989).
Rubin, C. T., K. J. McLeod, et al. (1989). Prevention of osteoporosis by pulsed electromagnetic fields. J Bone Joint Surg Am 71(3): 411-7.
4) 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.
5) Dr Jerry Jacobson - Cooper union in NY study on malignant melanoma cells @4T. Malignant melanoma - saw cells disperse and metastasize. Stronger is not better.
5) Further Proof Low Intensity PEMF WORKS - 12 Studies!!
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Very weak energy fields at the appropriate frequencies can be profoundly therapeutic. Other frequencies can produce pathological responses (like 4G).
While it may go against intuition, it appears that, within limits, it is not the strength of the signal that determines whether it will be beneficial or harmful, but rather it is the frequency!
Resonance is the reason for this frequency specificity. Biological effects like molecular resonances, are very frequency specific. This is vital for PEMF therapy along with all of energy healing and energy medicine devices.
For a long time scientists were very suspicious about the idea that very tiny energy fields could have any biological effects, let alone profound effects.
More and more evidence is proving that frequency resonance is the key to therapeutic energy healing. A recent study (Pall, 2013) points out that the answer to this question has been hiding in plain sight in the scientific literature for a long time.
An example of this is the relation to bone repair facilitated by exposure to tiny pulsating fields. The fact of this this therapeutic success in increasing osteoblast differentiation and maturation is difficult to challenge, because it is has been the subject of so many studies.
Pall lists these studies for the skeptical reader:
1. Ryabi JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355(Suppl. l):S205–15.
2. Oishi M, Onesti ST. Electrical bone graft stimulation for spinal fusion: a review. Neurosurgery. 2000;47:1041–55.
3. Aaron RK, Ciombor DM, Simon BJ. Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;10:579–93.
4. Goldstein C, Sprague S, Petrisor BA. Electrical stimulation for fracture healing: current evidence. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(Suppl. 1):S62–5.
5. Demitriou R, Babis GC. Biomaterial osseointegration enhancement with biophysical stimulation. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2007;7:253–65.
6. Griffin XL, Warner F, Costa M. The role of electromagnetic stimulation in the management of established non-union lf long bone fractures: what is the evidence? Injury. 2008;39:419–29.
7. Huang LQ, He HC, He CQ, et al. Clinical update of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteroporosis. Chin Med J. 2008;121:2095–9.
8. Groah SL, Lichy AM, Libin AV, et al. Intensive electrical stimulation attenuates femoral bone loss in acute spinal cord injury. PM R. 2010;2:1080–7.
9. Schidt-Rohlfing B, Silny J, Gavenis K, et al. Electromagnetic fields, electric current and bone healing – what is the evidence? Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149:265–70.
10. Griffin XL, Costa ML, Parsons N, et al. Electromagnetic field stimulation for treating delayed union or non-union of long bone fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CDO08471. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008471.pub2.
11. Chalidis B, Sachinis N, Assiotis A, et al. Stimulation of bone formation and fracture healing with pulsed electromagnetic fields: biologic responses and clinical implications. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(1 Suppl. 2):17020.
12. Zhong C, Zhao TF, Xu ZJ, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields on bone regeneration in experimental and clinical studies: a review of the literature. Chin Med J. 2012;125:367–72.
Source:
Pall, M.L. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug; 17(8): 958–965.
Published online 2013 Jun 26. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3780531/
Very weak energy fields at the appropriate frequencies can be profoundly therapeutic. Other frequencies can produce pathological responses (like 4G).
While it may go against intuition, it appears that, within limits, it is not the strength of the signal that determines whether it will be beneficial or harmful, but rather it is the frequency!
Resonance is the reason for this frequency specificity. Biological effects like molecular resonances, are very frequency specific. This is vital for PEMF therapy along with all of energy healing and energy medicine devices.
For a long time scientists were very suspicious about the idea that very tiny energy fields could have any biological effects, let alone profound effects.
More and more evidence is proving that frequency resonance is the key to therapeutic energy healing. A recent study (Pall, 2013) points out that the answer to this question has been hiding in plain sight in the scientific literature for a long time.
An example of this is the relation to bone repair facilitated by exposure to tiny pulsating fields. The fact of this this therapeutic success in increasing osteoblast differentiation and maturation is difficult to challenge, because it is has been the subject of so many studies.
Pall lists these studies for the skeptical reader:
1. Ryabi JT. Clinical effects of electromagnetic fields on fracture healing. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 1998;355(Suppl. l):S205–15.
2. Oishi M, Onesti ST. Electrical bone graft stimulation for spinal fusion: a review. Neurosurgery. 2000;47:1041–55.
3. Aaron RK, Ciombor DM, Simon BJ. Treatment of nonunions with electric and electromagnetic fields. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2004;10:579–93.
4. Goldstein C, Sprague S, Petrisor BA. Electrical stimulation for fracture healing: current evidence. J Orthop Trauma. 2010;24(Suppl. 1):S62–5.
5. Demitriou R, Babis GC. Biomaterial osseointegration enhancement with biophysical stimulation. J Musculoskelet Neuronal Interact. 2007;7:253–65.
6. Griffin XL, Warner F, Costa M. The role of electromagnetic stimulation in the management of established non-union lf long bone fractures: what is the evidence? Injury. 2008;39:419–29.
7. Huang LQ, He HC, He CQ, et al. Clinical update of pulsed electromagnetic fields on osteroporosis. Chin Med J. 2008;121:2095–9.
8. Groah SL, Lichy AM, Libin AV, et al. Intensive electrical stimulation attenuates femoral bone loss in acute spinal cord injury. PM R. 2010;2:1080–7.
9. Schidt-Rohlfing B, Silny J, Gavenis K, et al. Electromagnetic fields, electric current and bone healing – what is the evidence? Z Orthop Unfall. 2011;149:265–70.
10. Griffin XL, Costa ML, Parsons N, et al. Electromagnetic field stimulation for treating delayed union or non-union of long bone fractures in adults. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011:CDO08471. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD008471.pub2.
11. Chalidis B, Sachinis N, Assiotis A, et al. Stimulation of bone formation and fracture healing with pulsed electromagnetic fields: biologic responses and clinical implications. Int J Immunopathol Pharmacol. 2011;24(1 Suppl. 2):17020.
12. Zhong C, Zhao TF, Xu ZJ, et al. Effects of electromagnetic fields on bone regeneration in experimental and clinical studies: a review of the literature. Chin Med J. 2012;125:367–72.
Source:
Pall, M.L. 2013. Electromagnetic fields act via activation of voltage-gated calcium channels to produce beneficial or adverse effects. J Cell Mol Med. 2013 Aug; 17(8): 958–965.
Published online 2013 Jun 26. doi: 10.1111/jcmm.12088
6) This article, we see that 5,600 uT level of 100Hz is bad.
7) This one study I found is a source of an alarming finding: PEMF Level above 300uT SUPPRESSES SEX HORMONES IN HEALTHY ATHLETES!
Exposure above 300uT is bad for sex hormones.
You can not control how a non clinic setting uses equipment of this power threshold.
You can not make a statement that nothing bad happens. If 1 bad, then that must be advertised as an adverse side-effect.
Ken says: we will see if the the intensity level affecting sex hormones was a lower range, below the 1,500uT (note1) level touted by Pawluk (1.5mT = 1,500uT). YES! Thus, dosages above 300uT should be done by a Dr. not by a housewife. You can not control safe operation done in the home at these levels and above, according to this study. We should accumulate a database of 1) study 2) equipment 3) power levels 4) exposure time 5) exposure frequency 6) total exposure of study 7) adverse effects observed
“The aim of the paper, therefore, is to analyze the effects
of the magnetic fields that are used in long-term magnetotherapy and
magnetostimulation (as in physiotherapy) on the secretion of FSH, LH,
prolactin, testosterone and estradiol in men.”
In the ABSTRACT, find this quote:
Results:
Magnetotherapy did not affect hormone secretion in patients treated for low back pain. [ken says: they used a pillow pad which did not cover the head area, pituitary gland. What is to stop a housewife from putting the same pad and machine on her migraines? Note the last sentence in Pawluk screen shot above...]
Exposure above 300uT is bad for sex hormones.
You can not control how a non clinic setting uses equipment of this power threshold.
You can not make a statement that nothing bad happens. If 1 bad, then that must be advertised as an adverse side-effect.
Ken says: we will see if the the intensity level affecting sex hormones was a lower range, below the 1,500uT (note1) level touted by Pawluk (1.5mT = 1,500uT). YES! Thus, dosages above 300uT should be done by a Dr. not by a housewife. You can not control safe operation done in the home at these levels and above, according to this study. We should accumulate a database of 1) study 2) equipment 3) power levels 4) exposure time 5) exposure frequency 6) total exposure of study 7) adverse effects observed
“The aim of the paper, therefore, is to analyze the effects
of the magnetic fields that are used in long-term magnetotherapy and
magnetostimulation (as in physiotherapy) on the secretion of FSH, LH,
prolactin, testosterone and estradiol in men.”
In the ABSTRACT, find this quote:
Results:
Magnetotherapy did not affect hormone secretion in patients treated for low back pain. [ken says: they used a pillow pad which did not cover the head area, pituitary gland. What is to stop a housewife from putting the same pad and machine on her migraines? Note the last sentence in Pawluk screen shot above...]
| pemf_-_journal_of_steroids___ormonal_science_v5_issue_4___1_.pdf |
LINK TO STUDY ABOVE
Magnetostimulation affects the concentrations of prolactin, estradiol and testosterone.
from Page 2:
The absence, or limited importance, of the side effects that are
usually observed during or after exposure to magnetic fields [6-8]
does not exclude the occurrence of prolonged, potentially serious, consequences.
The long-term effects of low-
frequency magnetic fields used in physical therapy on the secretion
of sex hormones have never been properly studied. Thus, there is
a need to exclude the possibility of such adverse effects, or to study
the possible beneficial influence of these fields.
Conclusions
The results indicate a possible influence of magnetic fields used in magnetostimulation on the secretion of prolactin, estradiol and testosterone as they reduce their secretion.
Both the M2P2 and M3P3 programs of magnetostimulation seem to have a similar impact on the secretion of estradiol.
The effect of magnetic fields on the human endocrine system can continue for a month after the treatment, which requires a follow-up study that would take place much later than in the experiment.
The influence of magnetic fields used in physiotherapy requires further research on a larger number of participants, including women.
NOTE 1:
Magnetotherapy was applied for 20 minutes to the lumbar area in patients with chronic low back pain. The field parameters were as follows: 2.9 mT induction, 40 Hz frequency and a bipolar square wave. The average age of patients was 48 (28-58). Magnetronic MF-10, which was used in the study, generated unipolar and bipolar magnetic fields with a rectangular, sinusoidal or triangular shape of impulse in a continuous wave. The available frequencies ranged from 2 to 50 Hz. Various field inductions could be obtained depending on the applicator (550 mm, 315 mm and 200 mm coils) with the maximum of up to 20 mT (the 200 mm coil).
Materials and Methods
The study involved three groups of patients: the magnetotherapy group of 16 men and the magnetostimulation group of 20 men who were then subdivided into two groups. The patients were hospitalized at the Rehabilitation Ward of the Regional Hospital in Sieradz, Poland.
Magnetotherapy was applied for 20 minutes to the lumbar area in patients with chronic low back pain. The field parameters were as follows: 2.9 mT induction, 40 Hz frequency and a bipolar square wave. The average age of patients was 48 (28-58). Magnetronic MF-10, which was used in the study, generated unipolar and bipolar magnetic fields with a rectangular, sinusoidal or triangular shape of impulse in a continuous wave. The available frequencies ranged from 2 to 50 Hz. Various field inductions could be obtained depending on the applicator (550 mm, 315 mm and 200 mm coils) with the maximum of up to 20 mT (the 200 mm coil).
Magnetostimulation was provided with the use of the Viofor JPS device with a mat which generated a basic saw-shaped impulse (expotential). The P2 program, which used the mechanism of cyclotron resonance with the induction of 0-300 μT and which was set to the M2 mode of application with an increasing induction, was applied for 12 minutes in 10 patients who had been treated for the same complaint. The same device was used in the next group of 10 patients. It generated a basic saw-shaped impulse (expotential) in the P3 program which used the mechanism of cyclotron resonance with the induction of 0-300 μT. This time, the device was set to the M3 mode of application with an increasing-decreasing induction. The magnetostimulation session also lasted for 12 minutes. The average age of patients was 44 (34-52) in group 2 and 45 (33-54) in group 3. All the groups were treated with a course of 15 sessions (at about 10:00 a.m.) with breaks for weekends.
Magnetostimulation affects the concentrations of prolactin, estradiol and testosterone.
from Page 2:
The absence, or limited importance, of the side effects that are
usually observed during or after exposure to magnetic fields [6-8]
does not exclude the occurrence of prolonged, potentially serious, consequences.
The long-term effects of low-
frequency magnetic fields used in physical therapy on the secretion
of sex hormones have never been properly studied. Thus, there is
a need to exclude the possibility of such adverse effects, or to study
the possible beneficial influence of these fields.
Conclusions
The results indicate a possible influence of magnetic fields used in magnetostimulation on the secretion of prolactin, estradiol and testosterone as they reduce their secretion.
Both the M2P2 and M3P3 programs of magnetostimulation seem to have a similar impact on the secretion of estradiol.
The effect of magnetic fields on the human endocrine system can continue for a month after the treatment, which requires a follow-up study that would take place much later than in the experiment.
The influence of magnetic fields used in physiotherapy requires further research on a larger number of participants, including women.
NOTE 1:
Magnetotherapy was applied for 20 minutes to the lumbar area in patients with chronic low back pain. The field parameters were as follows: 2.9 mT induction, 40 Hz frequency and a bipolar square wave. The average age of patients was 48 (28-58). Magnetronic MF-10, which was used in the study, generated unipolar and bipolar magnetic fields with a rectangular, sinusoidal or triangular shape of impulse in a continuous wave. The available frequencies ranged from 2 to 50 Hz. Various field inductions could be obtained depending on the applicator (550 mm, 315 mm and 200 mm coils) with the maximum of up to 20 mT (the 200 mm coil).
Materials and Methods
The study involved three groups of patients: the magnetotherapy group of 16 men and the magnetostimulation group of 20 men who were then subdivided into two groups. The patients were hospitalized at the Rehabilitation Ward of the Regional Hospital in Sieradz, Poland.
Magnetotherapy was applied for 20 minutes to the lumbar area in patients with chronic low back pain. The field parameters were as follows: 2.9 mT induction, 40 Hz frequency and a bipolar square wave. The average age of patients was 48 (28-58). Magnetronic MF-10, which was used in the study, generated unipolar and bipolar magnetic fields with a rectangular, sinusoidal or triangular shape of impulse in a continuous wave. The available frequencies ranged from 2 to 50 Hz. Various field inductions could be obtained depending on the applicator (550 mm, 315 mm and 200 mm coils) with the maximum of up to 20 mT (the 200 mm coil).
Magnetostimulation was provided with the use of the Viofor JPS device with a mat which generated a basic saw-shaped impulse (expotential). The P2 program, which used the mechanism of cyclotron resonance with the induction of 0-300 μT and which was set to the M2 mode of application with an increasing induction, was applied for 12 minutes in 10 patients who had been treated for the same complaint. The same device was used in the next group of 10 patients. It generated a basic saw-shaped impulse (expotential) in the P3 program which used the mechanism of cyclotron resonance with the induction of 0-300 μT. This time, the device was set to the M3 mode of application with an increasing-decreasing induction. The magnetostimulation session also lasted for 12 minutes. The average age of patients was 44 (34-52) in group 2 and 45 (33-54) in group 3. All the groups were treated with a course of 15 sessions (at about 10:00 a.m.) with breaks for weekends.