William Pawluk, MD, MSc

When I was still active in hospital care, there was a one-month period in which I became aware that several patients had been admitted for stomach bleeds. One of them died. These were all pain patients taking ibuprofen or aspirin as recommended by their doctor. Gastric bleeding was a known and accepted side effect of these widely used over-the-counter medications. With no better options to help patients manage their pain, these complications continue to be, unfortunately, accepted. More than 16,000 North American arthritis patients die each year from gastric bleeding (Singh, 1998). That number could easily be doubled when all the pain conditions are considered for which NSAIDs are used. (Today we must also factor in the 15,000 deaths annually from opioids prescribed for pain management.) Thousands of others suffering with pain have permanent kidney damage from the use of NSAIDs, requiring dialysis. This began my journey in search of better alternatives.

As I gained experience within holistic/integrative medicine, I was not confident in pain reduction relying solely on using nutrition, supplements, or emotional/cognitive approaches. For the more significant pain problems that typically still resulted in reliance on narcotics, I felt that something else was needed. Even though I was trained in acupuncture, it was not always helpful in mitigating more severe pain. This is where magnetic therapy becomes a treatment par excellence, whether in a practitioner’s office or for home use. Most significantly, PEMFs do not just help to relieve the symptoms but also address the underlying causes of the pain, particularly inflammation. Addressing the causal factors are more likely to produce a durable response, eventually offering the possibility of healing the dysfunction. In my experience, almost everyone benefits from PEMF therapy, and patients are frequently able to avoid procedures and to decrease or avoid the use of medications. Research has shown that PEMFs work for numerous pain-related conditions (Pawluk, 2017), including the following:

Abdominal pain Angina Arthritis Bruises Burns Bursitis Carpal tunnel syndrome Cervical disc injuries Dental pain Fibrocystic breast disease Fibromyalgia Fractures

Intermittent claudication Ischemia Muscle spasms and tears Nerve entrapment Nerve pain Neuroma Painful shoulder Pelvic pain Peripheral neuropathy Phantom pain Plantar fasciitis

PMS Post-workout aching Postoperative pain Reflex sympathetic dystrophy Sinus pain Sprains Strains TMJ Tendonitis Tennis elbow Trauma Whiplash

Population-Wide Pain Syndromes. The issue of pain treatment is an extremely urgent public health and socioeconomic problem. In the US alone, chronic pain affects at least 116 million American adults, more than the total affected by heart disease, cancer, and diabetes combined. At least 17% of people ages 15 and older suffer from chronic pain to such a degree that it interferes with their daily life. Pain, in acute, recurrent, and chronic forms, is prevalent across age, cultural background, and gender and costs North American adults an estimated $10,000–$15,000 per person annually. At any given moment, at least one in four adults in North America is suffering from some form of pain.

The Regulatory Environment. FDA approval is not required for devices that are used or marketed primarily for wellness (FDA, 2016). This has resulted in a dramatic proliferation of relatively lower-cost, easily accessible, commercially available “wellness” PEMF systems. This position of FDA most likely results from the perspective that low-intensity, low-frequency PEMF systems are generally regarded as safe (GRAS).

PEMF as Complementary Therapy

Several authors have reviewed the experience with PEMFs in Eastern Europe (Jerabek and Pawluk, 1996) and elsewhere (Trock, 2000) and provided a synthesis of the typical physiologic find­ings of practical use to clinicians, resulting from magnetic therapies. Animal studies have shown that PEMFs reduce pain perception in the brain. In some research, PEMFs were found to be equivalent to 10 mg of morphine (Thomas & Prato, 2002).

Mechanisms of action include, at a minimum, reduction in inflammation, edema, and muscle spasms/contractions, enhanced tissue repair, and natural antinociception. Magnetic fields (MFs) affect pain perception both directly and indirectly, with an impact on neuron firing, calcium ion movement, membrane potentials, endorphins, dopamine, nitric oxide, and nerve regeneration. Indirect benefits of MFs from physiologic function enhancement can improve circulation, cellular metabolism, tissue oxygen, and prostaglandins (Jerabek and Pawluk, 1996).  For soft tissue and musculoskeletal injuries and for postsurgical, post-traumatic, and chronic wounds, edema reduction must take place in order to accelerate healing and reduce associated pain. These are the fundamentals of cell injury repair. (For research and references on more than 20 mechanisms of PEMF action, please see the October 2020 issue of Townsend Letter, available online.)

Frequency, Intensity, Duration. PEMF therapeutic devices are designed for specific frequencies and intensities.

• Frequency patterns, expressed in Hertz, refer to those commonly recorded on standard EEG evaluations, patterns first described in the literature (1929) by the German psychiatrist Hans Berger, inventor of the EEG device. The low end of the range, ELF (extremely low frequency) devices are 3 to 1000 Hz, and include familiar frequencies from delta (1-4 Hz), theta (5-8 Hz), alpha (9-13 Hz), beta (14-25 Hz) and gamma (26-100 Hz).
• Intensity refers to the strength of the magnetic field. On consumer devices, peak intensity ranges from 0.1 mT (1 gauss) to 800 mT (8,000 gauss). In contrast, a standard MRI unit is 1,000 to 2,000 mT (10,000 to 20,000 gauss) or 1-2 Tesla. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) units provided in hospitals and psychiatry practices typically have a strength of 800 mT (8,000 gauss).
  Even weak magnetic fields of very low intensity can affect pain perception and pain-related EEG changes in humans (Sartucci et al., 1997). For example, a two-hour exposure to just 0.02–0.07 mT (0.2-0.7 gauss) magnetic field can cause a significant positive change in pain-related EEG patterns. Neuroimaging research has revealed changes in specific areas of the brain with pain stimuli that were definitely modified by low-intensity PEMF exposure (Robertson et al., 2010).

• In terms of duration, a determination always needs to be made regarding the length of the course of treatment. The rule of thumb is that higher intensity PEMFs typically need shorter treatment times and course of treatment for pain reduction. Patients are often happy to simply have a reduction in symptoms and improvement in function. However, simply because the pain is gone does not mean that the problem is gone. Without resolution of the underlying cause, the pain will tend to recur.

PEMFs offer clinicians a tool that amplifies treatments they are already providing. It also broadens the range of indications they can treat successfully and deepens the benefits of the therapies they are applying, whether provided in the clinic or self-administered at home. At its most effective, PEMF therapy benefits from informed supervision and guidance by the practitioner. In the clinical setting, the fact that PEMFs penetrate clothing, casts, or bandages without attenuation means that therapy can be applied without having to expose or come in direct contact with the skin or target tissue. This allows simple focused application to organs within the body usually without concern for harm or negative effects to intervening tissue.

Reduction in the Need for Pain Medication. PEMF therapy is also frequently performed concomitantly with medication management. PEMFs are commonly seen clinically to not only decrease pain, but also reduce dependence on pain medications. In one study using very high-frequency PEMFs for the treatment of cervical dorsal root ganglion pain (Van Zundert et al., 2007), the need for pain medication continued to be significantly reduced in the active group after six months. A study on knee pain (Pawluk et al., 2002) found that even after follow-up at one year, 85% reported pain reduction beyond the time of stimulation. Medication consumption decreased by 39% at eight weeks and by almost 90% in the follow-up period after eight weeks. Rohde et al. (2010) documented a 2.2-fold reduction in narcotic use by PEMF-treated, post-surgical patients.

Musculoskeletal Disorders

Musculoskeletal disorders make up the vast majority of pain sources commonly treated with PEMFs. These include arthritis, tendonitis, sprains and strains, fractures, post-op pain, osteoporosis, wounds, neuralgias, neuropathies, hip disorders, muscle spasms, spinal cord injury, and trauma, as well as burns, neuromas, heel spurs, phantom pain, carpal tunnel syndrome, headaches, tennis elbow, reflex sympathetic dystrophy (RSD), and so on.

A series of 240 patient cases, treated in an orthopedic practice with PEMF, documented decreased pain (Schroter, 1976) from rheumatic illnesses, delayed healing process in bones, and pseudo-arthritis, including those with infections, fractures, aseptic necrosis, venous and arterial circulation, RSD (all stages), osteochondritis dissecans, osteomyelitis, and sprains, strains and bruises. The clinically determined success rate approached 80%. X-ray evidence of continued improvement confirmed cartilage/bone reformation and healing at the joint margin. Double-blind clinical studies have shown this in chronic wound repair, acute ankle sprains, and whiplash injuries. Similar studies have been done for neck pain.

Fractures. In evaluating acute care, researchers assessed pain and swelling of distal radius fractures after an immobilization period of six weeks (Cheing et al., 2015). In the study, 83 patients were randomly allocated 1) to receive 30 minutes of either ice plus PEMF, 2) ice plus sham PEMF, 3) PEMF alone, or 4) sham PEMF for five consecutive days. All had a standard home exercise program. The addition of PEMF to ice therapy produced better overall treatment outcomes than ice alone, or PEMF alone in pain reduction and improvement of ulnar nerve entrapment.

Whiplash. In a study of 92 patients with whiplash, pain was measured on a ten-point scale. The before/after treatment result averages were as follows: Head pain pretreatment 4.6/post-treatment 2.1 with magnetic field treatment compared with 4.2/3.5 in controls. Neck pain, 6.3/1.9 with PEMF as opposed to controls 5.3/4.6. For pain in the shoulder and arm, 2.4/0.8 with PEMF compared to controls 2.8/2.2 (Thuile & Walzl, 2002).

Back Pain. More than 15% of the entire US population experiences lower back pain (Preszler, 2000) at any given time. Spinal stenosis and arthritis of the back, for example, are conditions that are not usually reversible. Frequently they persist for the rest of a patient’s life and are typically progressive. Benefit using PEMF has been shown for patients suffering from stenosis, arthritis, herniated discs, spondylosis, radiculopathy (spinal nerve compression), and sciatica. People who have tried other modalities and failed to find relief often experience relief with PEMFs. Research findings suggest that it is best to apply PEMF therapy on a consistent basis over an extended period to achieve the best results, and 95% of individuals achieve significant relief.

In clinical practice, I recommend PEMF for back pain because the stimulation penetrates deep into the body to heal the tissues. In contrast, a study using a static magnet pad found no relief for back pain, likely because it was too shallow in its application (Cook & Persinger, 1996). Higher intensity PEMF is often necessary in more severe or chronic back pain situations to support effective pain reduction.

Lumbar Osteoarthritis. Patients who were treated with 35-40 mT (350-400 gauss) PEMF found relief between 90-95% of the time. PEMF therapy also enhanced results from other rehabilitation therapies and improved related neurologic symptoms (Mitbreit et al., 1986). Even PEMF of only 0.5-1.5 mT (5 to 15 gauss), used at the site of pain and related trigger points dramatically improved patients’ pain (Rauscher and Van Bise, 2001). Some patients remained pain free six months after treatment. While PEMFs can be especially dramatic in resolving acute back pain, they are actually most often used for chronic back pain.

Failed Back Syndrome. Chronic pain can be an unfortunate consequence of back surgery, and largely unpredictable. In these situations, PEMF therapy can make a huge difference in the ability to function. While PEMF may not be able to eliminate the pain because of the degree of damage to the back, severe pain may become tolerable, mild pain.

Lumbar Radiculopathy. A study involving 100 patients with lumbar pain received magnetic field treatment and controls received standard medication. Group 1 had low intensity PEMF therapy twice a day for two weeks. The average time to pain relief and painless walking was eight days in the PEMF group and 12 days in controls. In another randomized controlled clinical trial, 40 patients with lumbar disc prolapse were randomly assigned to either a PEMF group or a control group. PEMF produced better results on the Oswestry Low Back Disability index in terms of personal care, lifting, walking, sitting, standing, sleeping, social life, and employment, as well as evidence of improvement of nerve damage and nerve root compression (Thuile & Walzl, 2002).

Osteoarthritis (OA). These conditions affect approximately 40 million people in the US. The most optimal approach is to prevent progression of the OA process at the earliest stages. Various researchers have found positive effects of PEMFs on cartilage cells and tissue cells with field intensities between 1.5 mT and 3 mT (15-30 gauss), using a 75 Hz signal. At these parameters, stimulation for six hours per day had better clinical outcomes, with decreased use of NSAIDs. In these studies, PEMF stimulation increased cell growth and extracellular matrix (ECM) production. ECM molecules include proteoglycans (PGs which provide joint lubrication), glycosaminoglycans (GAGs), collagen II, IL-1b, and IGF-1. PEMF supported production of prostaglandin E2 (PG-E2) and reduced inflammation, increasing joint capsule cells, joint tissue stem cells, and collagen synthesis (Vannoni, Albanese, & Battisi, et al., 2012).

Other research showed positive results from a PEMF application of .5 mT-2 mT (5-20 gauss) and documented changes in prostaglandin levels evident within four to 24 hours of stimulation. Reducing pain and improving function are important, but unless the underlying changes in the tissues due to the OA process are affected directly and reversed, the tissue will continue to deteriorate and more aggressive treatment will need to be taken years later, such as joint replacement.

Neuropathies

Diabetic Neuropathy. PEMFs used for at least 12 minutes every day in the treatment of patients with intense symptoms of diabetic neuropathy experienced improvement in pain, as well as reduced paresthesia and vibration sensation, with increased muscular strength in 85% of patients compared to controls (Cieslar, Sieron, & Radelli, 1995).

Research on neuropathic pain (NP) (Graak et al., 2009) using low-power, low-frequency PEMF of 600 and 800 Hz, for 30 patients, 40–68 years of age with DNP stages N1a, N1b, N2a, were randomly allo­cated to three groups of ten each. They found significant reduction in pain and statistically significant improvement in distal latency and nerve conduction velocity in both experimental treatment groups. Using this particular protocol, low-frequency PEMF was seen to reduce NP and slow the progression of neuropathy, even when applied for only a short span of time.

Carpal Tunnel Syndrome. Another form of neuropathy, these chronic pain disorders affect the median nerve at the wrist. In a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial, ten months of active PEMF resulted in improvement in nerve conduction and subjective improvement on examination (40%) and reductions in pain scores (50%) and global symptoms (70%) (Weintraub & Cole, 2008).

Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CRPS). Also termed RSD (reflex sympathetic dystrophy), this form of neuropathy is extremely painful and largely unsatisfactorily treatable by standard approaches. In one report, ten 30-minute PEMF sessions at 50 Hz followed by a further ten sessions at 100 Hz plus physiotherapy and medication reduced edema and pain in 10 days (Saveriano & Ricci, 1989). I personally treated a patient with this disorder using a 27.12 MHz PEMF signal, a nurse who was almost completely disabled in her left upper extremity. She used her device for approximately an hour a day. Within about one month, she experienced 70% recovery, and within two months, she had essentially normal function with no sensitivity to touch or changes in skin temperature. She maintained her recovery with continued treatments in the home setting.

Complex Pain Conditions

Ulcers. Resolution of gastric ulcers requires clinical skill, given that they can be caused by H. pylori infection (Marshall, 1984) and/or stress. Treatment of duodenal ulcers with a 50 Hz, 20 to 25 mT (200 to 250 gauss) PEMF was 1) applied for one minute to acupuncture points specific to gastrointestinal function, compared to 2) the combination of medication plus PEMF acupuncture point stimulation, and 3) standard antiulcer medication (Kravtsova et al., 1994). Time to pain relief, reduction of dyspeptic symptoms, and ulcer healing were compared. Pain and dyspepsia were best controlled in the sole PEMF therapy group in 2.75 days, whereas combining PEMF and drug therapy resulted in pain control in 8.61 days. Ulcer healing with PEMF took 18.25 days, with PEMF and medication, 19 days, and with medication only, 26.6 days. Compared with other studies in which medication plus active therapy was more effective, in this study adding medication appeared to delay improvement.

Migraines. Globally, approximately 15% of people are affected by migraine headaches. A migraine study of PEMF provided treatment at 2-5 Hz and 3-4 mT (30-40 gauss) with stimulation to the head once daily for 10-15 minutes for 30 days. Improvement in the PEMF group averaged 66% versus 23% in the placebo group with decreased frequency and intensity of attacks (Lazar & Farago, 1987).

In a study of 90 patients with headaches resistant to medication or acupuncture, PEMF treatment was applied for 20 minutes daily for 15 days. PEMF stimulation was most effective against tension headaches with 88% reporting excellent or good results (for classic migraines, 60% of patients experienced benefit, and for cervical migraines, 68%) (Prusinski, Wielka, & Durko, 1987).

In research involving 82 patients with a variety of headaches, including migraines, tension headaches, migraines and tension headaches in combination, and cluster headaches, as well as weather-related, and post-traumatic head pain, patients were evaluated in a double-blind, placebo-controlled study with four weeks of PEMF, 16 Hz at 5 mT (50 gauss). Of those receiving active treatment, 76% experienced evident or definite relief of symptoms. Only two participants had worsening of symptoms (Pelka, Jaenicke, & Gruenwald, 2001).

In a series of 20 treatments, 50 migraine patients received PEMF at 10 Hz for 15 minutes a day. Reduced frequency and intensity of attacks was experienced by 60% of patients with diminished use of medication over a three- to four-month period (Mix, Henssen, & Lehmitz, 1990). In a second study, a case series, 50% to 60% of participants reported a favorable effect with PEMF therapy. A third study of PEMF at 9.6 mT (96 gauss) and 12 Hz applied to the head for one hour was found to alleviate migraines (Grunner, 1985).

A migraine study with an unusual design applied PEMF treatment to the area of the femoral artery in the inner thigh. Short courses of therapy produced a 73% reduction in pain, whereas a longer course of therapy provided 90% relief (Sherman, 1999).

Fibromyalgia (FM). Individuals with FM have abnormalities in central brain structures that process pain sensations, impairment in their ability to activate natural pain inhibition, and/or altered CNS processing of pain signals, resulting in hypersensitivity to pain.

A fibromyalgia study (Sutbeyaz, Sezer, & Koseoglu, 2009) involving 56 women with FM, ages 18 to 60, randomly assigned participants to PEMF or sham therapy, 30 minutes per session, twice a day for three weeks. They were tested for general FM status, pain, depression, and general function. After active treatment ended at four weeks, significant improvements were evident in test scores and were maintained at the twelve-week evaluations. The sham group showed general improvement at four weeks. However, there was no improvement in pain or FM symptoms, and there was some regression in general gains made by twelve weeks in the sham group.

PEMF or sham exposure treatments were provided in another study and levels of pain and anxiety were evaluated. (Shupak, McKay, & Nielson, 2006) The study was double blind, randomized, and placebo-controlled with a 30-minute magnetic field exposure, at an intensity of about 400 mT (4 gauss), < 3 kHz. There was significant benefit in reduction of pain for the FM patients with PEMF therapy.

In a double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial involving women ages 22 to 50 years old, the active stimulation group received therapy with an 8 Hz square wave PEMF of 43 nT (0.00043 gauss) using an EEG cap with 33 small PEMF coils. Treatment sessions were provided once a week, lasting 20 minutes each time, for eight weeks. Outcome measures included blood serotonin levels, pain thresholds, activities of daily living, perceived chronic pain, and sleep quality. Improvement in pain thresholds was noted after the first stimulation session; however, improvement in other measures occurred after the sixth week. The perceived pain after eight sessions was 39% less, compared with 8% reduction in the sham group. This study makes it clear that even low intensity magnetic stimulation may offer a safe and effective treatment for chronic pain and other fibromyalgia symptoms (Maestu, Blanco, & Nevado, 2013).

Centralized Pain

In the presence of pain, nerve signals move from the source of the pain upstream to the brain. Foot pain, for example, can become established in the brain, and the brain can then become the chronic source of the pain (termed centralization or colloquially, “pain brain”). In this situation, treating the brain is the most appropriate approach. In fact, many chronic pain conditions centralize quickly. The brain may perpetuate the pain signal even though the initial pain stimulus is now relatively weak. Therefore, dual approaches, treating the localized source (the foot, in the example of a foot injury) and the brain, may produce the best, fastest results. In these situations, PEMF systems are recommended that will allow whole-body and localized treatment simultaneously.

Conversely, treatment should address the injured area and the spinal cord at the same time or in the same treatment session. In other cases, pain may be conducted downstream as well (a hip problem can cause knee pain, for instance). For this reason, it is ideal to treat the source of the pain, not the region to which the pain is referred. Further, identifying the cause, not just the referred location, is critical to appropriate and enduring relief. In sum, the most effective chronic pain management involves treating the source of the pain and also apply treatments to the brain or along the spine. This combination allows for management of the cause of the pain and at the same time controls the pain signaling to the brain where the pain is ultimately recognized and where it may continue to reverberate.

Healing does not typically occur overnight. More powerful PEMFs may be necessary. Weaker PEMF systems usually take significantly longer to provide benefit, particularly when the source of the pain is deeper in the body.

Clinical Relevance

Across four decades of research on magnetic fields, there have been hundreds of studies that found benefit from PEMF and a limited number that found benefit equal to placebo. None of the research to date has found harm. In this article, we have reported those that documented clear benefit, with a range of parameters in terms of frequency, intensity, and duration of treatment.

There are numerous PEMF devices available to the clinician with a range of functional capabilities and limitations. The choice of a device should be based on the conditions to be treated and the relative strength called for to reach the target tissue or organ, as indicated by research data and clinical studies. Clinical electromagnetic (PEMF) therapy is highly relevant to conditions treated in the fields of chiropractic, physical therapy, acupuncture, biofeedback, naturopathy, and psychology, as well as orthopedics, physical medicine, pain medicine, neurosurgery, psychiatry, and the growing fields of integrative and functional medicine.

Resources

PEMF Devices. Dr. Pawluk has purchased, tested, and validated approximately 100 different PEMF devices over the 30 years he has worked in this field. Based on his experience, a number of devices are recommended and available for purchase on his website, drpawluk.com. They include: local and whole-body systems, both battery and AC-powered devices, intensities of devices range from very low intensity (<1 gauss), medium intensity (10 – 1,000 gauss), to high intensity (2,000-8,000 gauss) including devices that are able to cause muscle contractions.

Consulting services. Dr. Pawluk provides consulting services to both consumers and practitioners. Consultations are recommended for practitioners to be able to have more certainty about the most appropriate tools for the professional setting. Many professionals spend much more than they need to for PEMF systems. On the other hand, many professionals also acquire PEMF systems that are not likely to provide much benefit quickly in the practice setting.

Website. drpawluk.com is an extensive resource for patients, with basic educational information, more than 40 blogs with references, numerous videos, and a virtual store from which devices may be purchased. Once devices are purchased, Dr. Pawluk and his staff provide significant ongoing support for both initial use and subsequent informational needs.

Book. Power Tools for Health is a readable, highly referenced work on basic concepts in the application of PEMFs, mechanisms of action, an extensive clinical section on 50 different health conditions, and more than 500 references on clinical trials and laboratory findings.

Select References

Complete references are available at www.DrPawluk for all citations appearing in the article.

Cheing GL, Wan JW, Kai Lo S. Ice and pulsed electromagnetic field to reduce pain and swelling after distal radius fractures. J Rehabil Med. 2005;37(6):372-7.

Hamid P, Malik B, Hussain M. Noninvasive transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) in chronic refractory pain: A systematic review. Cureus. 2019 11(10):e6019.

Iashchenko LV, Chistiakov IV, Gakh LM, et al. Low-frequency magnetic fields in the combined therapy of inflammatory lung diseases. Probl Tuberk. 1988;3:53-6.

Kravtsova T, Rybolovlev EV, Kochurov AP. The use of magnetic puncture in patients with duodenal peptic ulcer. Vopr Kurortol Fizioter Lech Fiz Kult. 1994;1:22-4.

Pawluk W, Turk Z, Fischer G, et al. Treatment of osteoarthritis with a new broadband PEMF signal. In 24^th Annual Meeting of Bioelectomagnetics Society, Quebec City, Canada, June 2002.

Rohde C, Chiang A, Adipoju O, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields on interleukin-1 beta and postoperative pain: A double-blind, placebo-controlled, pilot study in breast reduction patients. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2010;125(6):1620-1629.

Ryang We S, et al. Effects of pulsed electromagnetic field on knee osteoarthritis: a systematic review.

Rheumatology (Oxford). 2013.

Saveriano G, Ricci S. Experiences in treating secondary post-traumatic algodystrophy with low-frequency PEMFs in conjunction with functional rehabilitation. In International Symposium in Honor of Luigi Galvani, Bologna, Italy. J Bioelectr. 1989;8(2):320.

Van Zundert J, Patijn J, Kessels A, et al. Pulsed radiofrequency adjacent to the cervical dorsal root ganglion in chronic cervical radicular pain: A double blind sham controlled randomized clinical trial. Pain. 2007;127(1-2):173-82.

Yang S, Chang MC. Effect of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation on pain management: A systematic narrative review. Neurol., 18 February 2020;11:114.

Editorial Support
Nancy Faass, MSW, MPH – info@HealthWritersGroup.com
Jerry Stine, CNC – Lifespan2@comcast.net

William Pawluk, MD, MSc

Dr. William Pawluk is a holistic physician located in Townsend, Maryland, in the Baltimore metropolitan area, with past appointments at Johns Hopkins University and the University of Maryland. With a background in family medicine, he has additional training in functional medicine, nutrition, acupuncture, homeopathy, hypnotherapy, bodywork, and energy medicine. He is the foremost authority on Pulsed Electromagnetic Field therapy in North America, with 30 years of experience in clinical applications of PEMF for healing, regeneration, and holistic pain management. Author of Power Tools for Health, a comprehensive book on the research and usage of PEMFs in healing, he has also written professional book chapters and numerous journal articles. and provided more than 50 interviews for radio, podcasts, magazines, and TV. He has been cohost of a two-hour holistic health radio show for the past ten years and host of the Pain Solution Summit, www.painsolutionsummit.com. In 2019, Dr. Pawluk received the ACIM Lifetime Achievement Award for work with Magnetic Field Therapy.