43,283 views
introduction
Dr. Dennis was very skeptical and didn't think PEMF would do anything. But NASA pressed on and so he devised a double blind placebo controlled study on Pulsed Electro-Magnetic Fields or PEMF abbreviated. Here are the amazing excerpts and quotes from this interview.
a very broad experiment
For two of those six different classifications of you know broad categories of magnetic waves. For two of them, we saw some very significant biological effects. So what I mean by biological effects? Everybody talks about this tuning mitochondria or something like that. But I can do real specific! We measured gene expression using quantitative gene array analysis and we saw very significant up and down regulation of genes, so it wasn't just sort of like you know, waving hands or anything. We counted cells and the cell growth. It was much better when we applied certain types of pulsed magnetic cells. We did metabolic measurements with lactate, glucose and stuff. Using measurable, samples from the media from the cells. We get all that kind of stuff everything that we could afford to do,t hat was available. It was done double-blind and we got very strong results.
types of waveforms
The results basically were that if you had an arrow, you know pulse that was sort of like a square wave. Technically, it's trapezoidal, but I'm just gon na call it a square wave for now. Okay, if you had a wide square wave, if you had something that looked like a square wave right, you know no magnetic field and also it turns on rapidly, and then it holds for a while that it turns off right. So this looks like a square wave right or something really narrow, which in engineering you call it. A delta falls those two kind of show a really significant effect on virtually everything we measured.
gene expressed 7-8x more
I said wow, this is a really big deal. I don't believe it. I don't believe scientifically anything unless you can repeat it, because you have spurious results. So I went ahead and I redesigned and I recalibrated my scent new set of you know essentially PEMF driver equipment to NASA with everything new new labels on it and we ran the experiment and guess what get the same result. So now I have to say if I were, if I remain skeptical, that would be foolish because now the weight of the data, you know repeatable data in a double-blind experiment. You click indicates in very clearly nickers and biological effect. That'S very statistically significant, but it's also very biologically significant right. It's not like the difference is a little tiny bit, but you can shelter there. We were seeing. Differences of you know, increases in gene expression. You know six seven eight times or more
repeatability
And it was all the same genes same types of genes. The patterns of the gene expression changes made a lot of sense because they were more systematic right. It wasn't just random genes going up or down, but it would be like all the genes related to a certain type of style activity might go down or most the genes most of the genes related to a different type of cell activity would go up.
The results were strong, they were repeatable and they made sense systematically. It was sort of like you know, turning the genes on that are related to growth, for example, and then seeing a lot more growth in the cells. So we saw morphologically, we saw you know under the microscope. We saw the results of what gene arrays were telling us should be happening. There should be a lot more self. It should be growing faster in their extracellular matrix that they pack around the outside up in between itself should be a lot thicker and in fact so true, you could actually see it with the naked eye.
Not invented here
The guy who is running the laboratory, his name was dr. David Walsh was actually up on the MIR space station and at that point he was scheduled leader for like four and a half months, so he wasn't in his laboratory. It was being by this categorical technician and that person decided that he would publish and patent all of these findings without including me or any of them.
That's what's caused all this confusion for the last 15 years, so he went ahead and did that thinking that he had invented this stuff and he hadn't right. So so I I you know, I'm busy doing other things and I didn't want to get into any kind of mudslinging fight with NASA
But please help us
Pretty much from 2003 to 2005, I had very little to do with it and I started getting phone calls from companies that had licensed the technology from NASA to start growing stem cells and making bomb?? molecules and stuff like that.
They said dr. Dennis, we need to talk to you, we just licensed this technology from NASA and they can't transfer the technology because they don't know how to build it and one of the guys finally admitted to us you're, the guy who invented it. So will you please help us?
That's why I kind of got that begin to it around 2005. 2006 2007. We actually had an internal legal audit of the patents from NASA and they found in my favor that in fact, I'm the inventor.
history of PEMF
PEMF has had a long history at leat for a 150 years, maybe more. This is the actual first PEMF work where there was like a legitimate scientific, carefully conducted study that was repeated and had good results, but the tragedy, the loss to everybody, is that when he published it and patented it without including me, he lost a huge amount of the information that I could contributed to those publications and patents.
better to work together
There are no active PMF companies now who actually have a real license from NASA, so we read about other companies making other products aside from my company micro pulse, and I have rights to the you know the technology at NASA. They actually still some. In fact, they are sending the royalty checks for other companies that are using it for other purposes, but for you know, sorta, like orthopedic or purposes and applying it as a PDMS device to be in the body or to animals. There actually aren't any companies that have done a legitimate technology transfer with that yeah any company that references it they're, basing their product on a technology - that's 20 years old, but they don't own that they had no part in and that was incorrectly recorded. So I mean how good can it possibly be?
I actually helped because I would rather have good technology on the market rather than sort of be competing with them and having people put a bunch of junk on the market.
I'll give even competitors information, so the products can actually work because out of that quadrillion different combinations. So far as I can tell there's not a whole lot of them that actually will work well.
Everyone, including me, is better off if we can sort of incorporate some legitimacy into the products in the research and if all we do is start having these, you know fights over who owns what IP and who owns what then, what you'll end up with is, you Know a loss, a total loss of potential because you know, as you say, most of the products would be just ineffective.
opensource
Unfortunately, I'm working with a bunch of lawyers and intellectual property people everything try to finally sort out the last of these IP issues so that, basically, I can you know essentially open sourced the material and let people do research on it.
People have no idea difficult. It is to get a study, scientific studies, a big deal in a scientists entire career. They may really only be involved in two or three or four large studies.
It takes years and years and years of millions of dollars to do some of these things.
Unexpected results
Looking at the biophysics of the way that ICES - PEMF Products works, I believe it will elucidate a completely new class of transmembrane cellular receptors, for example, because it's moving ions, it's moving ions perpendicular to the direction that you'd expect for like voltage-gated channels to work.
All of our experiments done with things like patch funding everything they're very, very good at excluding transverse ion movement. So, for the last 40 years we've probably been looking for um, you know voltage and current sensitive channels are exactly orthogonal to they're, exactly perpendicular to the direction that we get with effective PEMF. So they've been very effectively excluded from our our experiments. So when you understand that, then you can start to to look for different types of membrane receptors and you can start to understand biology a lot better.
No excersize but just the signal of it
The device seems to work best for people who have chronic orthopaedic pain and injury. It works really well for that, because the way that I designed it was specifically to simulate exercise and motion during development of like embryonic and fetal tissues.
The huge advantages you don't get the mechanical damage from the exercise. You just get the signal as if it's there.
The patterns from ICES are exactly the patterns that simulate the kind of neural motor patterns you'd see from slow twitch and fast twitch muscles. And to transform them you transport them through calculus and differential equations to the induced currents that you'd see around the cells. That's all done electronically and eternally to the device.
It generates cells that look like ions would be having to flow through musculoskeletal tissues, joints and bones and muscles. During normal gentle exercise. It makes the ions make those movements, and it's really pretty much pretty straightforward engineering.
importance of repeatable experiments
Literally halfway through the experiment, it stopped working and nobody could figure out. Why? So I want to analyzed everything and turns out that they make one change that just completely wiped it out. So you really have to be careful about this.
It was about 2011 and I was just sort of getting the PMF to the point where it was really effective, because I was using it to treat my own back, because I went bad back injury and it was really how a lot so is using myself as a guinea pig.
The concern that I have is that if the technology is not advancing, yes, if they don't even know why their product works, if they make any change to it, it could just you could very easily stop working and very interestingly. This is what I see among the scientific researchers. This is something that you could vary. You know fastidiously try to find in a scientific literature, but in the scientific literature you have something called publication bias, which means, if your experiment work is pretty easy to publish it. If your experiment gave you a negative result, it's very hard to publish it so all the stuff that people did with PMF and magnets that didn't work. Pretty much never saw the light of day, but that's really important information right.
I actually went to a bunch of these labs to talk to people about it and every single time I heard the same story yeah. You know we put something together with duct tape and baling wire and bubble gum, and it worked really well. So then we built a really nice version that was more powerful, so you can do some great experiments and the effect the biological effects while waiting. We can never get it back and you see that over and over again and that's what happens if you don't know what parameters to control.
optimizing
I've been able to cut I've, been able to cut the cost down by you, know a hundredfold and almost a thousand times actually and we've been able to cut it down from the size of a microwave oven to the size of tech cards. So it's much more efficient, it's much more effective!
A lot of the other PEMF products are is, like you know, more power, more power, more power, but that's sort of like those old-fashioned. You know, if you know public speakers or, like the speakers you hear in an airport, the sound quality is so poor that, in order to get the signal out, they have to key turn the volume. Yes have it. If you have a crystal clear signal, that's absolutely clear and doesn't have noise. You can hear a whisper mm-hm, and that's the point so so. The thing about Isis version 5 is in particular is that it's extremely low energy, interactive, less energy than a cell phone, totally yeah, less than half of a cell phone output, it's more like 1/3.
What really matters is the first time derivative of the magnetic field, the magnetic slew rate, and that has to be right and it has to be in a certain range to work and - and we find that when you go below that range doesn't work at all. When you go above that threshold, it works really well, and we have several studies now that just show that very very, very clearly in animals.
I'm systematically making sure that I understand what parts of the signal work and I'm systematically excluding parts of the signal and if it, if it continues to work by work, I mean have measurable, desirable biological effects. I keep that for the signal and if that signal is not important for you know making it work, then I just discard it.
brain cells
The original work that we did at NASA was on NH MP sells normal human neural progenitor cells, which are cell line, but they're thought to sort of be like astral glial cells, which are really important in the brain they're, not really neurons and yeah. Those are the cells that really showed consistent response to the original fields. We'Ve done. I'Ve done a lot of sort of beta testing with people who have peripheral neuropathy and in many many cases where there's a problem, and it can take a lot of different forms. Like urinary incontinence, where they think there's some kind of nerve, swelling or blocking carpal tunnel syndrome and other sorts of things like that.
The story there, it really does reduce inflammation and even if it's not directly, acting on the nerves, it you know a lot of people, don't realize that nerves are surrounded in the inner penetrate other types of cells, and it may be that you know when you have A problem in a peripheral nerve that the problem is actually the peripheral nerve. It might be the surrounding tissue yeah, that's the problem. It might be that that tissue is as a problem of inflammation.
You can almost say now all diseases of aging that are progressive degenerative diseases of some inflammatory component.
reduces inflamation
I actually ran two completely independent laboratory tests on using generation. Four three and four Isis at an independent laboratory called Charles River labs, where they do testing for drug companies, and I actually had them test Isis on an inflammation model in rats where they inject a natural chemical. That causes inflammation into the foot pad of a rat, and then they just watch the inflammation over the course of eight hours, yeah and - and they reported to me that it was not only was it stunningly effective. They also said that they had tested every other pmf device that was registered or approved by the FDA and a bunch of the other ones that were just sold. You know people had had them test them and they said they never actually seen any significant or measurable effects. In our case, the lowest dose of Isis was as effective as those sixty-two percent as effective as a large dose of steroid dexamethasone. So our minimum dose of Isis is about two-thirds as effective, roughly as steroid. Only the thing is, it doesn't have the side effects.
FDA approved? No thanks.
We'll keep it in the alternative market right, so everybody's like why? Don't you get an FDA approved, assure you five million dollars in three to five years, and I can't change it or improve it over that time.
Just go to google and type in you know, you know, um withdrawn is the correct word or you know, withdrawn FDA approvals and there's just this endless list of drugs that have been shown to be ineffective in dangerous, same thing with medical devices, so FDA approval. In my opinion - and I think the evidence is there to support that is neither a any it is no, it is no assurance of safety or efficacy of anything.
The other thing about it is you get it approved and then, of course, you know they might have prove it and say oh it's by prescription only. So, instead of being able to you know by an Isis machine for me for a couple hundred bucks. Now you have to go see a doctor, then then we have to go through the whole thing and it ended up costing $ 2,000 to get long prescription. It could just hinder the development.
170 million dollars and six to ten years of research to demonstrate that that product was safe and effective for product. It was just being modified a little bit.
That is what happens because of the way the FDA regulates, certain types of devices at peak EMF or of those types. There's no innovation. And that's why I've stayed out of the system.
I'm 100 % confident we could get approval, but the cost would be no further innovation.
A lot of people - you know they just challenged me with this like why don't you just get FDA approval? As if you know I can just fill out a piece of paper and it's done, but it costs millions of dollars! It's a very, very involved process and it will completely stop innovation pretty much permanently.