PEMF machines do not treat any specific condition. The are designed to optimize the body’s natural self-healing ability, as well as to optimize the body's self-regulating functions.  "The benefits of PEMF,  have been demonstrated through more than 2000 university-level, double-blind, medical studies conducted in many countries.   Here is a sample of some of those studies that concluded with positive results.

Crocetti et al., 2013, tested the potential of low frequency machine to kill breast cancer cells. The damage done to these cells was noticed after three days of daily exposure to pulsed electromagnetic field systems.
Healthy cells are elastic and benefit from electromagnetic charge. Cancer cells in comparison are brittle and are destroyed by the sudden increase in negative ion charge.
There are numerous other studies showing the initiation of apoptosis and necrosis in cancerous tissue while displaying a beneficial effect on the surrounding cell tissue. [1]–[3]

• Depression
A research team from Harvard found PEMF to cause a “significant improvement in mood” after one 20-minute treatment. This research was so convincing that in 2011, the FDA approved PEMF as a treatment for depression.

• Osteoarthritis
PEMF has shown to decrease pain and increase function of arthritic joints [4]–[9]

• Osteoporosis
PEMF has shown to decrease bone loss and increase osteoclast function (bone building) [10], [11]

• Bone injuries fractures, breaks
Increased osteoblast activity, increased bone healing speed in early and late stages of bone restoration [11]–[14]

• Tissue injuries
Increased collagen production in diabetic wound healing [15], [16]

• Pain
Reduces perception of pain [5], [17].

• Joint Pain
In an 11-year study on 3014 patients suffering from joint pain, PEMF was effective in 78.8% of the patients in reversing pain.

• Shoulder pain
 In a landmark, double-blind study on rotator cuff pain, PEMF was effective for 83% of patients in 16 weeks to treatment.

• Wrist pain 
PEMF was 93% effective in patients with carpal tunnel pain.

• Back pain
Patients treated had a variety of chronic conditions, including herniated disc, spinal nerve compression, sciatica, torn cartilage; 95% of patients found pain relief.

Also, Richards, in 2000 documented patients with low back pain due to lumbar disc injuries, who had failed to be treated with medical or surgical interventions. These patients had PEMF sessions and were followed for a period of 16 months. Fusion of their back bones was successful in almost 98% of patients who received PEMF compared to 53% of patients who received no stimulation.

• Elbow pain
PEMF was more effective in pain relief than steroid injections in patients with tennis elbow pain.

• Migraines
In a double-blind, placebo-controlled study, PEMF was 88% effective  against migraines. as a result of this research, the FDA approved PEMF for the treatment of migraines.

• Inflammation
Reduced Il-6 and other inflammatory markers [18].

• Insomnia
In a double-blind study of sleep, 100 people with insomnia, after four weeks of treatment, 70% of them experienced “substantial or complete relief.” 24% had “clear improvement,” and 6% had “slight improvement.”

• Vision
96.7% of patients receiving PEMF had improved visual acuity after 10 treatments.

• Memory, heart conditions, dental issues, smoother skin, help with quitting smoking
PEMF has been shown to assist in all of these conditions.

Major Study of 1,116 patients proves magnetic-field therapy effective
From May of 1999 to December 2002, General Practitioners from several European countries voluntarily took part in a major stud of magnetic-field therapy.  None of the doctors received compensation. Over an 8-week period, the 220 General Practitioners noted the effects of magnetic-field therapy on 1,116 patients who suffered from the 42 categories of medical conditions.  At the end of the test period, the patients were placed in one of three categories: 

1) complaint free, 2) improved, or 3) unchanged.

For example, 23 patients suffered from allergies. By the end of the study, 16 of them were complaint-free, 4 were improved and 3 were unchanged.

You might be surprised by the results the patients in this study got from other common ailments.

• Arthritis: Out of 236 arthritis sufferers 112 became complaint free, 83 were improved, and 41 were unchanged

• Depression: Out of 42 depressed patients, 27 became complaint free, 11 were improved, and 4 were unchanged.

• Diabetes Type II:  Out of 26 diabetes type II patients, 15 became complaint free, 6 were improved, and 7 were unchanged.

• Edema: Out of 17 edema patients, 13 were complaint free, 3 were improved, and 1 was unchanged.

• Fibromyalgia: Out of 12 fibromyalgia patients, 3 became complaint free, 3 were improved, and 6 were unchanged.

• Fractures: Out of 22 patients with fractures, 22 became complaint free.  Magnetic-field therapy speeded up their healing process.

• General pain: Out of 32 patients in pain, 23 became complaint free, 8 were improved, and 1 was unchanged.

• Headaches (non-migraine): Out of 50 patients with headaches, 37 were complaint free, 9 were improved, and 4 were unchanged.

• Heart disease: Out of 22 heart disease patients, 11 were complaint free, 3 were improved, and 8 were unchanged.

• Hypertension (high blood pressure): Out of 54 patients with hypertension, 32 became complaint free, 13 were improved, and 9 were unchanged.

• Immune system disorder: Out of 16 patients with immune system disorders, 12 became complaint free, 4 were improved. No body was unchanged.

• Incontinence and bladder problems: Out of 10 patients with incontinence, 6 became complaint free, 3 were improved, and 1 was unchanged.

• Migraine headaches: Out of 49 Migraine patients, 30 became complaint free, 14 were improved, and 5 were unchanged.

• Multiple Sclerosis: Out of 14 M.S. patients, 4 became complaint free, 6 were improved, and 4 were unchanged.

• Osteoporosis: Out of 30 osteoporosis patients, 18 became complaint free, 9 were improved, and 3 were unchanged.

• Rheumatism: Out of 48 rheumatism patients, 34 became complaint free, 11 were improved, and 3 were unchanged.

• Sleep disorders: Out of 176 patients with sleep disorders, 115 became complaint free, 42 were improved, and 19 were unchanged.

• Spinal column diseases and disorders: Out of 243 patients with spinal problems, 162 became complaint free, 54 were improved, and 27 were unchanged.

• Stomach disorders: Out of 16 patients with stomach disorders, 14 became complaint free, 1 was improved, and 1 was unchanged.

• Strokes (the condition after the stroke): Out of 11 stroke patients, 4 became complaint free, 4 were improved, and 3 were unchanged.

• Tennis elbow: Out of 20 patients with tennis elbow, 16 became complaint free, 3 were improved, and 1 was unchanged.

• Tinnitus: Out of 33 tinnitus patients, 8 became complaint free, 17 were improved, and 8 were unchanged.

• Tiredness/Exhaustion/Stress: Out of 63 exhausted patients, 45 became complaint free, 14 were improved, and 4 were unchanged.

• Ulcers: Out of 22 patients with ulcers, 18 became complaint free, 3 were improved, and 1 was unchanged.

• Wound healing: Out of 29 patients with wounds, 26 became complaint free, 1 was improved, and 2 were unchanged.


[1]         I. Tatarov, A. Panda, D. Petkov, K. Kolappaswamy, K. Thompson, A. Kavirayani, M. M. Lipsky, E. Elson, C. C. Davis, S. S. Martin, and L. J. DeTolla, “Effect of magnetic fields on tumor growth and viability,” Comp. Med., vol. 61, no. 4, pp. 339–345, 2011.[2]         S. Crocetti, C. Beyer, G. Schade, M. Egli, J. Fröhlich, and A. Franco-Obregón, “Low intensity and frequency pulsed electromagnetic fields selectively impair breast cancer cell viability.,” PLoS One, vol. 8, no. 9, p. e72944, 2013.[3]         C. F. Blackman, “Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again?,” Br. J. Cancer, vol. 106, no. 2, pp. 241–2, 2012.[4]         P. Vavken, F. Arrich, O. Schuhfried, and R. Dorotka, “Effectiveness of pulsed electromagnetic field therapy in the management of osteoarthritis of the knee: A meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials,” J. Rehabil. Med., vol. 41, no. 6, pp. 406–411, 2009.[5]         T. Iannitti, G. Fistetto, A. Esposito, V. Rottigni, and B. Palmieri, “Pulsed electromagnetic field therapy for management of osteoarthritis-related pain, stiffness and physical function: Clinical experience in the elderly,” Clin. Interv. Aging, vol. 8, pp. 1289–1293, 2013.[6]         L. Tan, Y. Ren, T. G. van Kooten, D. W. Grijpma, and R. Kuijer, “Low-intensity pulsed ultrasound (LIPUS) and pulsed electromagnetic field treatments affect degeneration of cultured articular cartilage explants,” Int. Orthop., vol. 39, no. 3, pp. 549–557, 2015.[7]         H. Wuschech, U. von Hehn, E. Mikus, and R. H. Funk, “Effects of PEMF on patients with osteoarthritis: Results of a prospective, placebo-controlled, double-blind study,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 585, no. October, pp. 576–585, 2015.[8]         D. M. Ciombor, R. K. Aaron, S. Wang, and B. Simon, “Modification of osteoarthritis by pulsed electromagnetic field – A morphological study,” Osteoarthr. Cartil., vol. 11, no. 6, pp. 455–462, 2003.[9]         G. Thamsborg, A. Florescu, P. Oturai, E. Fallentin, K. Tritsaris, and S. Dissing, “Treatment of knee osteoarthritis with pulsed electromagnetic fields: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled study.,” Osteoarthritis Cartilage, vol. 13, no. 7, pp. 575–81, 2005.[10]      L. E. L. Clinton T. Rubin, Kenneth J. McLeod, “Prevention of Osteoporosis by PEMF,” J. Bone Jt. Surgury, vol. 71-A, no. 3, pp. 411–416, 1989.[11]      C. Fredericks and T. Baker, “Effects of Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields on Bone Healing,” Group, vol. 14, pp. 93–100, 2000.[12]      S. B. Chittaranjan, R. Balamurugan, N. S. Nandakumar, A. Sabareeswaran, and M. Mohanty, “Basic Science Pulsed electromagnetic field treatment for fracture healing,” Bone, vol. 20, no. 4, pp. 423–428, 2009.[13]      N. Inoue, I. Ohnishi, D. Chen, L. W. Deitz, J. D. Schwardt, and E. Y. S. Chao, “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields on late-phase osteotomy gap healing in a canine tibial model,” J. Orthop. Res., vol. 20, no. 5, pp. 1106–1114, 2002.[14]      A. B. Sarker, A. N. Nashimuddin, K. M. Islam, K. S. Rabbani, M. Rahman, A. U. Mushin, and M. Hussain, “Effect of PEMF on fresh fracture-healing in rat tibia,” Bangladesh Med. Res. Counc. Bull., vol. 19, no. 3, pp. 103–108, 1993.[15]      G. L. Y. Cheing, X. Li, L. Huang, R. L. C. Kwan, and K. K. Cheung, “Pulsed electromagnetic fields promote early wound healing and myofibroblast proliferation in diabetic rats,” Bioelectromagnetics, vol. 35, no. 3, pp. 161–169, 2014.[16]      M.-C. Choi, K.-K. Cheung, X. Li, and G. L.-Y. Cheing, “Pulsed electromagnetic field promotes collagen fibre deposition associated with increased myofibroblast population in the early healing phase of diabetic wound,” Arch. Dermatol. Res., vol. 308, no. 1, pp. 21–29, 2016.[17]      W. Pawluk, “Pain Management with Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields Treatment,” Brain, no. March, 2003.[18]      J. C. Pena-Philippides, Y. Yang, O. Bragina, S. Hagberg, E. Nemoto, and T. Roitbak, “Effect of pulsed electromagnetic field on infarct size and inflammation after cerebral ischemia in mice,” Transl. Stroke Res., vol. 5, no. 4, p. 491, 2014.