My training is in electrical engineering. A good part of my work involved dealing with electromagnetic fields ("EMFs"). Sad to say most man-made EMFs are harmful. For detailed review the literature I recommend a book entitled "Overpowered" available on Amazon here:
amazon.com/Overpowered-Dang...
That said, extremely low-frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields (ELF-PEMF), frequency around 7.5 Hz, have been used successfully to stimulate bone repair and angiogenesis. Per karger.com/Article/Abstract... "Magnetic fields of 0.1–20 G are usually applied to produce electrical fields, ranging from 1 mV/cm to 100 mV/cm in the bone". So this works for bone repair (and maintenance in zero gravity conditions).
There are a few studies that claim to show a benefit of pulsed electromagnetic fields ("PEMFs") in Parkinson's, but their results range from invalid to mediocre. That said, if you were to have any hope of attaining the claimed improvements you would have to reproduce the treatment used in the study. This means using the same placement and design of the coil(s), and the same frequency, amplitude and shape of the electrical waveform applied. Otherwise you are a researcher exploring unknown territory. If you choose to do this let us know what you did - the equipment, the settings, the coil placement - and the result.
The one study that possibly showed improvement had a means of coil placement beyond the resources of an individual Parkinson's patient. They used a .2 Hz pulse rate - one pulse every 5 seconds, which is not available on most consumer equipment.
Now to the studies:
A recent study purports to show a benefit from a particular kind of PEMF, but their claim is invalid. From the abstract:
brainstimjrnl.com/article/S...
"The active group improved in the two part-score items, Activity-of-daily- living and Mobility ( p < 0.021; p < 0.027), whereas the placebo group remained unchanged. PDQ-39 total scores improved, from baseline to endpoint in both groups ( p < 0.001) but did not differ in total score improvements ( p < 0.312) "
What makes this claim invalid is the overall score of the test group was no different from the control group. There will be some random variation in test results. What these investigators did was to cherry pick the portions of the test where there treatment showed improvement and ignored the portions of the test that showed the opposite.
In other words the improvement of the test group in some areas was compensated for by a decline in other areas. The key point is the overall test scores were the same for both groups and the variations were almost certainly random.
The full study paper revealed that while the test group showed more improvement of mobility the placebo group improved more on cognition.
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi...
An earlier study claimed to show a benefit from PEMF but they treated the subjects first with a sham PEMF and then with the real thing. They got a big improvement with the sham treatment and then a bit more improvement with the real thing. The overall improvement including both treatments was statistically significant, but had they analyzed only the improvement generated by the real treatment subsequent to applying the sham treatment the result would not have been stat sig. That study can be found here:
hindawi.com/journals/isrn/2...
A preliminary study can be found here:
researchgate.net/profile/Iz...
The manner of placing the stimulation coil was set forth as follows:
"The optimal stimulation site was determined by moving the coil around the left side of the scalp Cz until the maximum MEP response was achieved. The threshold was defined as the minimum stimulation intensity, required to elicit reproducible MEPs of at least 50 μV during at least four out of eight stimulations at the optimal stimulation site at rest."
PwP, Glaucoma and Citicoline
Parkinson’s and vagal nerve stimulation, promising human studies.
