Cancer and PEMF Pulsed ElectroMagnetic Fields Therapy

What Is Cancer?

Conventional medicine defines cancer as a colony of malignant cells, or a tumor. If you have a tumor, then the conventional oncologist will try to cut or slash it out via surgery. After they cut you, then they typically recommend chemo to try to kill any remaining cancer cells with toxic poisons. And they will finish off with radiation, to burn whatever cancer cells remain.

This is why I, and many others, refer to “the Big 3” protocol as “Slash, Poison, and Burn.” Alternative medicine sees cancer as a multidimensional, systemic total body disease. The cancer tumor is merely a symptom and the purpose of the alternative cancer treatment is to correct the root causes of cancer in the whole body.

The fact is we develop cancer cells throughout our bodies throughout our lives. Our bodies are normally able to find them, identify them and destroy them before they are able to grow uncontrollably. It is a normal occurrence, which is constantly taking place in a healthy body. It is only when the healthy body becomes unable to mount its normal defenses and the cancer cells are allowed to reproduce at an uncontrollable rate that cancer becomes life threatening. This is a failure or breakdown of our normal immune system. The immune systems breakdown, and its cause, needs to be treated in conjunction with the cancer, in order to assure the best possible outcome for the patient. Any treatment that does not address underlying causes for the breakdown of the immune system will be palliative at best, and life threatening at their worst.

It’s important to remember the basic physiology of all cancer cells. Whether it be breast, prostate, renal or lung, there are many facets of their physiology that will remain constant. Glucose is taken in as a primary food; lactic acid is excreted from the cancer cells into the blood. The blood carries the lactic acid to the liver, where it is converted back into glucose to feed the cancer cells. This occurs in all known cancer cells. It has been well documented in many studies, that, many years ago serum glucose levels were used to monitor the progress of the disease. It was well established that as the disease progressed, serum glucose levels would rise.

Knowing this, the wisdom of removing simple carbohydrates and sugars from the diet becomes obvious. The ignorant use of glucose I.V.’s in cancer patients also becomes painfully obvious. The object is to make it difficult for cancer cells to reproduce. Why fuel them with a primary requirement? They are unable to efficiently use protein or complex carbohydrates for food. The healthy cells of our body and immune system are able to use these as fuel and for repair. Adapt the patient to a diet that includes protein and complex carbohydrates and eliminate the rest. This is a simple change that can make a huge difference in the final outcome of the disease process. It’s also important to remember that a large number of cancer cell types have receptor sites for opiates. In other words, opiates used to fight pain will actually increase the cancer cell’s growth rate.

The quick shrinkage of tumors that is sometimes seen in chemotherapy or radiation therapy is not a sign of recovery from cancer. It is a complete shutting down of the normal immune response. This is as indisputable fact, yet the pharmaceutical companies are allowed to use it to get their chemotherapy approved. Under optimal conditions, tumors will enlarge as they become engorged with CD-cells and macrophages. These cells identify the cancer cells, kill them and then devour their remains. This is an inflammatory response and results in the tumor growing slightly as it becomes engorged with these cells. If the tumor shrinks quickly from chemotherapy or radiation therapy, the ideal healthy response of the body to controlling cancer does not have a chance to occur.

Never confuse rapid tumor shrinkage with beating the cancer. It is just the opposite.

CT scans and PET scan show inflammatory responses, not just cancer. Since the normal and healthy body response are CD-cells infiltration and consuming of cancer cells is also an inflammatory response, they are often confused by radiologists untrained in cancer fighting agents that work with the immune system to facilitate both increases in CD-cells and at the same time being cytotoxic (selectively killing cancer cells).

Source :

Latest study on the treatment of cancer with PEMF
British Journal of Cancer (2012) 106, 241–242. doi:10.1038/bjc.2011.576  Published online 17 January 2012

Treating cancer with amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields: a potential paradigm shift, again?

C F Blackman
Integrated Systems Toxicology Division (B-105-03), US Environmental Protection Agency, Research Triangle Park, NC 27711, USA

Correspondence: Dr CF Blackman, E-mail: Blackman.Carl@epa.govThe Zimmerman et al (2012) study published here, coupled with the group’s two preceding papers (Barbault et al, 2009; Costa et al, 2011), identify a potential modality for treating tumours at a dramatic reduction in trauma and cost. This set of clinical and explanatory laboratory results should be understood in the context of the history of research into the biological effects of electromagnetic fields (EMFs).

The most successful clinical application is the use of EMF to initiate fusion in fractured long bones that would not otherwise heal. Pulsed fields were designed to simulate the natural piezoelectric signals generated from bones under varying stress while walking (e.g., Bassett, 1985). There are also other reports that EMF can reduce pain and stimulate wound healing after surgery.

The group’s two previous clinical reports were critical to the design of this new Zimmerman et al study. Barbault et al (2009) described how they obtained the specific frequencies for different tumour diagnoses, which are then used in the amplitude-modulated (AM)-EMF treatment of those patients to stabilise the disease beyond normal expectations. Costa et al (2011) reported surprising clinical benefits from using the specific AM-EMF signals to treat advanced hepatocellular carcinoma, stabilising the disease and even producing partial responses up to 58 months in a subset of the patients. Now Zimmerman et al have examined the growth rate of human tumour cell lines from liver and breast cancers along with normal cells from those tissues exposed to AM-EMF. Reduced growth rate was observed for tumour cells exposed to tissue-specific AM-EMF, but no change in growth rate in normal cells derived from the same tissue type, or in tumour or normal cells from the other tissue type. The growth rate inhibitory response was field-strength (SAR) and exposure-time dependent. In ancillary tests, they observed reduction in gene expression and increases in mitotic spindle dysfunction only for the AM-EMF exposure that reduced the cell growth rate.

The work of Zimmerman et al, Costa et al and Barbault et al was not done in a vacuum. More than 30 years ago, Suzanne Bawin working in Ross Adey’s lab (Bawin et al, 1975), with independent replication by my group (Blackman et al, 1979), demonstrated that biological effects could be caused by certain AM frequencies on a carrier wave but not other frequencies, similar to the current work. Subsequent reports in the 1980s by several groups continued to support and extend the initial findings (Adey, 1992; Blackman, 1992).
This growing collection of reports demonstrating AM-EMF-induced biological effects led to recognition by national and international authorities that this modality needed to be considered in hazard evaluation, in addition to field-induced heating as a cause for health concern. The National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1986) recommended a reduction in the allowable exposure intensity limits for AM radiation above a certain level, and the World Health Organization (1993) explicitly acknowledged AM as a future issue to be examined in setting exposure guidelines. Unexpectedly, research funding for this area dried up around 1990 and scientific advances dramatically slowed. A promising area of research fell by the wayside.

The Zimmerman et al paper, providing essential laboratory data to support the two previous clinical treatment papers, has resurrected the promising AM-EMF paradigm. It should lead to a major reevaluation of this novel and potentially effective treatment for cancer and possibly other conditions. This study demonstrates the fundamental requirement for a biological ‘information content’ code (i.e., the AM spectral profile, much like different AM radio stations with different content – e.g., all news, or music) that can affect tumour cells from the tissue of origin, while apparently being ignored by normal cells from various tissues and tumour cells from different tissues of origin. The correspondence between AM-EMF-induced effects on cell proliferation, gene expression, and mitotic spindle dysfunction provide some clues to a possible biological mechanism of action.

The tools developed in Barbault et al (2009) to identify relevant treatment frequencies can be seen to have direct clinical and medical relevance in determining the characteristics of a new modality that may prove useful in cancer treatment. The precision of the frequency definitions, down to 1?mHz, is very unusual, but it is reminiscent of the biological effects reported for 40–48-GHz frequencies by Grundler et al (1982), and may represent a true effective frequency limitation that most studies would have missed, because of the lack of available, precise generation equipment or lack of the investigator knowledge.

The Zimmerman et al study raises a number of issues to be resolved. First, a more detailed elucidation of AM-EMF-induced genomic pathway changes is needed in order to put the results on a firmer mechanistic basis. Second, more information is needed on the nature of the growth inhibition, for example, is it persistent or do resistant cells emerge from continued treatment? Third, will cells from liver or breast tissues in different stages of transformation reduce or enhance sensitivity to AM-EMF exposure? Fourth, will tissue-specific AM-EMF tumour treatments for humans have similar effects on cells from animal tumours? For example, if rodent liver tumour cells respond similarly to the treatments, this may open a new, more rapid investigation of the therapeutic efficacy of the technique.

When the three studies are taken together, it is apparent that there are gaps in knowledge that can limit the acceptance of this treatment for cancer. How do the biofeedback endpoints (skin electrical resistance, pulse amplitude and blood pressure) engage with the disease state to provide an indication of effective frequencies to treat patients, and most surprisingly, to directly affect tumour cells in vitro from the same tissue type? The issue of frequency precision in the AM-EMF signal also needs to be examined and characterised as a function of different physiological growth conditions. Equally mysterious is the mechanism by which AM-EMF administered via a spoon-shaped antenna placed in the mouth can influence cancer cells in the liver or breast of patients. Finally, these patients had advanced cancer and were in palliative care when EMF testing began. Would earlier intervention in breast cancer or liver cancer cases with AM-EMF prove to be more effective?

Funding is needed for further medical and basic science research to identify and characterise the biological influence that amplitude-modulated EMFs have on the body, in its normal state, when recovering from disease or injury, and when initially affected by disease. As a caution, ‘information content’ EMF signals may not always have beneficial consequences for humans or their environment, so research should examine potential detrimental biological outcomes as well.

The group of three papers demonstrate a new, potentially important modality in the treatment of cancer that could lead to a paradigm shift in disease treatment. I hope that this medical application of AM-EMF will not be allowed languish without funding, as happened with its previous, ill-fated emergence.

This commentary has been subjected to review by the National Health and Environmental Effects Research Laboratory, and approved for publication. Approval does not signify that the contents reflect the views of the Agency, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use.

1.Adey RW (1992) Collective properties of cell membranes. In Interaction Mechanisms of Low-level Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, Norden B, Ramel C (eds) pp 47–77. Oxford University Press: Oxford; New York
2.Barbault A, Costa FP, Bottger B, Munden RF, Bomholt F, Kuster N, Pasche B (2009) Amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields for the treatment of cancer: discovery of tumor-specific frequencies and assessment of a novel therapeutic approach. J Exp Clin Cancer Res 28: 51–60 | Article | PubMed |
3.Bassett CA (1985) The development and application of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMFs) for ununited fractures and arthrodeses. Clin Plast Surg 12: 259–277 | PubMed | ISI |
4.Bawin SM, Kaczmarek LK, Adey WR (1975) Effects of modulated VHF fields on the central nervous system. Ann N Y Acad Sci 247: 74–81 | Article | PubMed |
5.Blackman CF (1992) Calcium release from nervous tissue: experimental results and possible mechanisms. In Interaction Mechanisms of Low-Level Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, Norden B, Ramel C (eds), pp 107–129. Oxford University Press: Oxford; New York
6.Blackman CF, Elder JA, Weil CM, Benane SG, Eichinger DC, House DE. (1979) Induction of calcium ion efflux from brain tissue by radio-frequency radiation: effects of modulation-frequency and field strength. Radio Sci 14(6S): 93–98 | Article |
7.Costa FP, de Oliveira AC, Meirelles R, Machado MC, Zanesco T, Surjan R, Chammas MC, de Souza Rocha M, Morgan D, Cantor A, Zimmerman J, Brezovich I, Kuster N, Barbault A, Pasche B. (2011) Treatment of advanced hepatocellular carcinoma with very low levels of amplitude-modulated electromagnetic fields. Br J Cancer 105: 640–648 | Article | PubMed | ISI |
8.Grundler W, Keilmann F, Putterlik V, Strube D (1982) Resonant-like dependence of yeast growth rate on microwave frequencies. Br J Cancer Suppl 5: 206–208 | PubMed |
9.National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements (1986) Biological Effects and Exposure Criteria for Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields. pp 382, NCRP Report No. 86, NCRP: Bethesda, MD
10.World Health Organization (1993) Environmental Health Criteria 137. “Electromagnetic Fields (300Hz to 300 GHz)”. pp 290, Geneva
11.Zimmerman ZW, Pennison MJ, Brezovich I, Nengun Y, Yang CT, Ramaker R, Absher D, Myers RM, Kuster N, Costa FP, Barbault A, Pasche B (2012) Cancer cell proliferation is inhibited by specific modulation frequencies. Br J Cancer 106: 307–313 | Article |


This study examined the effects of a rotational magnetic field on a group of 51 breast cancer patients. Results showed a significant positive response in 27 of them.
N.G. Bakhmutskii, et al., “The Assessment of the Efficacy of the Effect of a Rotational Magnetic Field on the Course of the Tumor Process in Patients with Generalized Breast Cancer,” Sov Med, (7), 1991, . 25-27.

Results of this study proved that the combination of weak pulsed electromagnetic fields with antioxidant supplementation is beneficial in the treatment of patients suffering from tongue cancer, improving speech, pain control, and tolerance to chemotherapy.

U. Randoll & R.M. Pangan, “The Role of Complex Biophysical-Chemical Therapies for Cancer,”Bioelectrochem Bioenerg, 27(3), 1992, . 341-346.

Results of this Russian study indicated that the use of whole body eddy magnetic fields, coupled with more conventional cancer therapies is effective in the treatment of patients suffering from a variety of different malignancies.
V. Smirnova, “Anti-Tumorigenic Action of an Eddy Magnetic Field,” Vrach, 2, 1994, . 25-26

This study examined the effects of whole body magnetic fields (16.5-35 G, 50- 165 Hz) on patients suffering from different forms of cancer. Treatment consisted of 15 cycles, each 1-20 minutes in duration, and was coupled with more traditional cancer therapies. Results showed overall beneficial effects, particularly with respect to improved immune status and postoperative recovery.

V.A. Lubennikov, et al., “First Experience in Using a Whole-Body Magnetic Field Exposure in Treating Cancer Patients,” Vopr Onkol, 41(2), 1995, . 140-141.

Back to PEMF Education