1. Registering for the Forum

    We require a human profile pic upon registration on this forum.

    After registration is submitted, you will receive a confirmation email, which should contain a link to confirm your intent to register for the forum. At this point, you will not yet be registered on the forum.

    Our Support staff will manually approve your account within 24 hours, and you will get a notification. This is to prevent the many spam account signups which we receive on a daily basis.

    If you have any problems completing this registration, please email support@jackkruse.com and we will assist you.

Creator of PEMF device response

Discussion in 'Biohacking 101' started by cap, Apr 28, 2017.

  1. cap

    cap New Member

    So I reached out to the creator of the ICES device after being freaked out to learn about their risks after hearing Jack talk about their potential dangers and looking over the NTP report. I am pissed I have purchased the ICES device and sent over the NTP report to the creator asking if he could comment. This was his reply:

    "Thanks for the interesting link. Yes, this has been a long-standing controversy, and I remain cautious about it. Here are my various thoughts on the matter, as I have been considering it for a very long time:

    It is important to consider the effect of "publication bias", the tendency for scientific journals to prefer
    long-standing controversy, and I remain cautious about it. Here are my various thoughts on the matter, as I have been considering it for a very long time:

    It is important to consider the effect of "publication bias", the tendency for scientific journals to prefer to publish papers that show positive results rather than those papers that publish negative results. In many fields of science it is 5 to 10 times easier to publish positive results (where something happens) than negative results (where nothing happens). There are many examples of papers where no effect of RF radiation was found, no increase in cancer risk was linked to cell phone use. These papers are probably under-represented in the literature against positive results (RF causes cancer) by a factor of 5 to 10 simply because the positive results are much easier to get published, and in much higher impact journals. In two papers that I know of from 2011, where the researchers used cell phone radiation to show an increase of cancer risk in mice, they showed just the opposite: the cancer risk was slightly *reduced*, but also they noticed that the risk of age-related dementia was also reduced when the mice were exposed to cell phone RF energy. You can find the facts that you want to find in this area. I really do not see a clear scientific consensus.

    Other things to consider are the fact that RF from cell phones is very different from the RF generated by other devices such as low frequency PEMF, micro-wave ovens, wifi, or even power lines. Scientists have been trying to show for decades that high power lines cause cancer... but the results are equivocal, some positive, some negative. "Electrosmog" is also an issue.

    Since most of these common devices have much higher power RF radiation than ICES, you might be concerned about any of the following:
    cell phones
    micro-wave ovens
    AC line power
    wifi
    digital cameras
    computers (GHz clock speeds now)
    computer monitors
    electric motors on cars, appliances, elevators, etc..
    fans, HVAC systems

    I do think we need to consider the risks inherent in all electronic devices. But I also do not think these should raise serious alarm and fear since the evidence remains unclear, even after many thousands of scientific studies.

    For example, low frequency PEMF is thousands of millions of times lower frequency than common RF signals. Also, the magnetic fields of PEMF devices close in on themselves to form tight loops, unlike RF radiation from an antenna, which is a point source that radiates energy to infinite distance. The fields from many PEMF systems are below the background noise even just a few feet away, unlike radio signals from an antenna.

    Finally, I personally have concerns about excess RF exposure, so I have spent about 20 years reducing the excess energy in PEMF waveforms. This has resulted in the modern version of ICES technology which uses only about 1/500th of the energy of the original PEMF devices of 20 years ago. That's a 99.8% reduction in RF energy in ICES, without loss of biological benefit. That is why you can run our device on a 9V battery, whereas most PEMF systems require access to power from the main lines.

    You also need to consider bias in the study: who funded it? Was it supported at least in part by a group that has a reason to see the outcome they reported. Such bias in science is a huge (and growing) problem. The first well-documented case of this was when petro companies funded a lot of research to show that leaded gasoline was safe for people and the environment. It clearly is not, but they heavily supported biased science and to this day some people still cite those reports.

    My opinion: in this case the science is unclear, but when we see an effect is seems to be small unless a lot of RF energy at high frequency is used in the study. I advise caution, and I continue to advise people to carefully weigh the risk vs benefit of applying PEMF on or near the head. In general I think people should avoid unnecessary exposure to all forms of RF. but necessary forms of exposure can be OK.

    I hope that perspective is helpful,

    Bob"

    Anyone here (smarter than me) want to chime in with something to ask him or maybe link him to any more resources?

    thought this would be a good share and I still have much to learn to l get to everyone else's 'level' on here
     

Share This Page