Quantum Energy Wellness Bed Reduces Pain
Whitepaper by Dr. Glen Rein, PhD
Quantum-Biology Research Lab
Research by Dr. Adair Roberto Soares dos Santos
Head of the Laboratory of Neurobiology of Pain
Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil
The Quantum Energy Wellness Bed (QEWB) is the next generation of Wellness Beds which have been recently introduced into the commercial health and wellness marketplace. Most Wellness Beds are based on recent discoveries that classical electromagnetic (EM) fields produce a wide variety of beneficial effects on the body. These discoveries, which originated in University research labs, have now been commercialized and made available to the public. Initially they manifested as Pulsed EM Field (PEMF) devices back in the 1980’s and 1990’s which only treated the body using known frequencies which were shown to be effective at the in-vitro cellular level at University labs. More recently the devices were modified to both measure energetic imbalances (diagnose) and normalize or re-balance the body in the form of Bio-resonance devices. Most recently energy devices have taken the form of Wellness Beds. The better Wellness Beds on the market today use both classical and non-classical energies (eg. scalar energy), but not quantum energy. Recent research by Dr. Rein, at the Quantum-Biology Research Lab, has shown that under the right conditions, these two types of energy fields can be synergistic, i.e. the net effect of the two combined energies is greater than the additive sum. This finding was recently presented at the International Tesla Society and the Society for Scientific Exploration (SSE). The QEWB also emits quantum fields, which the author has previously shown to produce biological effects by themselves (Rein, 1991 and 2014).
Most of the original University studies with classical EM fields were done with the blessings of the Bioelectromagnetics Society – a group of electrical engineers and biologists who were studying the interaction of energy (EM fields) and matter (biological systems). Their research, however, is limited to only certain types of classical EM fields within a defined frequency range. Recently frontier scientists have begun experimenting with other types of EM fields. These EM fields can be considered non-classical, since they do not necessarily obey the classical behavior of ordinary EM fields. Thus, their behavior cannot be characterized or predicted by the classical mathematical equations of Maxwell and Hertz. Therefore, they are not usually studied or accepted by mainstream scientists.
Although very few studies have investigated the biological effects of non-classical energy fields (Rein, 2001), the scientific literature is full of articles about classical EM fields. Some of these studies have shown that classical EM fields are beneficial for pain. One recent study, for example, showed EM fields significantly reduced neuropathic pain in patients suffering for peripheral neuropathy. In this study the soles of the feet of 24 subjects were treated for 2 weeks with a low frequency EM field for one hour per day (Weintraub, 2004).
Since the QEWB uses both classical and non-classical EM fields, in addition to other forms of subtle energy and quantum energy, it is difficult to predict what types of beneficial biological effects will be produced. A multi-disciplinary research group at the Neuroscience Department, the Experimental Neurobiology Department and the Laboratory of Neurobiology at the Federal University of Santa Catarina in Brazil took on this challenge and decided to measure the effects of the QEWB on pain reduction. This University is the third largest in Brazil with more than 300 laboratories and research centers.
This group has been studying neuropathic and inflammatory pain for many years in both humans and animals in search of treatment modalities and to study the biochemical mechanisms. They often use the mouse Ischemia-Reperfusion (IR) animal model which is internationally recognized as the gold standard for studying Complex Regional Pain Syndrome-1 (Coderre, 2004) which is a severe, disabling and chronic disease in humans resulting from trauma or injury.
Although the sensation of pain is a subjective experience, scientists often use animal models to quantify the effects of various treatments to reduce pain. One such model is the paw Ischemia-Reperfusion (IR) technique which is commonly used in mice. The IR technique is much more sensitive than just measuring the time it takes for an animal to withdraw its paw after being exposed to heat, cold or pressure. This increased sensitivity to pain is called hypersensitivity and is considered a hallmark of the IR technique.
The technique involves restricting the blood flow to a paw by positioning an elastic ring onto the right ankle of a mouse. After three hours the ring is removed, allowing blood to flow back to the paw. During and after this procedure scientists repeatedly exposed the animals to various noxious stimuli over the course of several days including pressure, cold and heat and daily measured their behavior responses. They measured the frequency and intensity of the body shakes and the act of licking their paw (assumedly in an effort to heal the ischemic injury caused by lack of oxygen). This behavioral response is indicative of the degree of pain the animals perceive. The higher the frequency of occurrence, the stronger the pain. Therefore, control values are high and treatment values are low in the Figures below.
In the present study the mice received three different types of noxious stimuli. Mechanical stressors were induced by applying multiple, sequential banging on the same skin spot with a hammer-like device called a Frey filament. Sensitivity to cold was measured following exposure of the animals to an acetone spray for two minutes. Sensitivity to heat (thermal) was determined by placing the animals on a hot plate (120°C). Animals were exposed to noxious stimuli daily and behavioral responses were recorded daily for the entire two weeks of the study. Mechanical hypersensitivity was also measured after a single one-hour treatment and a single 24 hour treatment.
Figure 1a - Mechanical Hypersensitivity to Pressure Pain
The results in Figure 1a show that during the entire two weeks of the study the QEWB reduces pressure pain. Without daily treatment with the QEWB, pain levels remain elevated, yet stay constant, over the two weeks of the study (white circles). However, with daily one-hour treatments on the QEWB (AT condition, black diamonds) pain levels drop significantly varying from day to day. The maximum reduction in pain was about 70% and the overall average reduction in pain was about 55% giving a highly significant decrease compared to controls. On day 11 and 12 the mice were not placed on the QEWB (no AT condition) and their pain levels immediately rose to that of the untreated control mice. On day 13 the mice were put back on the bed and their pain levels were again reduced.
Figure 1b -Mechanical Sensitivity after a Single Treatment
Figure 1b indicates that after only one treatment on the QEWB, for one hour, there was a statistically significant decrease in pain levels by 36%. This is similar to the reduction seen in Figure 1a, although the data in Figure 1b also indicates that the effect wears off over the next few hours returning to baseline levels after 4 hours. The same conclusion was reached in a similar experiment but for a much longer treatment time. Therefore, it seems a single one-hour treatment on the bed gives the maximum effect, and multiple daily treatments continues to produce even stronger pain reduction reaching a maximum on day 6.
Figure 2 – Sensitivity to Cold
The results in Figure 2 indicate similar pain reduction to cold as was observed for pressure pain, although the QEWB is less effective against cold pain giving a maximum pain reduction of 46% and an average reduction of 34%. In this case the maximum effect of daily treatments was seen at day 5. When treatments with the bed are removed, pain levels go back to baseline.
Figure 3 – Sensitivity to Heat
The results in Figure 3 indicate the QEWB is not effective against pain induced by heat, even after two weeks of hourly treatments.
Electromagnetic fields have been demonstrated to have therapeutic benefits on pain. In fact, exposure to these fields produces analgesic effects in various organisms including snails, rodents (rats and mice) and humans using a variety of different techniques. Most studies use high frequency EM fields, expose animals to a hot plate and measure how long it takes them to escape (jump). The general conclusion from these animal studies is that EM fields do have analgesic effects by increasing the animals pain threshold.
Numerous studies have also shown analgesic effects in humans. Unlike the animal studies many human studies use low frequency EM fields and use subjects who have pain associated with an illness or a disease. For example, a randomized, double-blind, sham-controlled clinical trial was done using Fibromyalgia patients with chronic generalized pain as well as patients with chronic localized musculoskeletal inflammatory pain (Thomas et al. 2007). Two daily treatments of 40 min each conducted over seven days resulted in pain reduction using a visual analogue scale with respect to sham-exposed patients. The effects of pain reduction in patients with Fibromyalgia were observed.
Some human studies with diseased subjects use high frequency EM fields. For example, a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study with rheumatoid arthritis patients revealed that an acute 30 min EM field exposure resulted in a significant decrease in pain perception using the McGill Pain Questionnaire, Visual Analogue Scale (Shupak et al. 2006). These findings provide evidence that both high frequency and low frequency electromagnetic field exposure can reduce pain in chronic pain populations with medical conditions or diseases.
Similar results were obtained when using normal, healthy human subjects where pain was induced by applying noxious stimuli to the skin. For example, a randomized, double-blind study showed that a 30 min exposure to a low-frequency pulsed EM field increases pain thresholds (Shupak, 2004). Although the effect was statistically significant, the magnitude of the effect was weak. Other studies (Radzievsky 2008; Partyla, 2017) with healthy humans exposed to low temperatures and high frequency EM fields showed similar results, although the effects were larger. These results are complicated because the net efficacy of the EM fields to reduce pain are dependent on the frequency of the EM field, the temperature used and the biological species studied. Nonetheless, these studies indicate that EM fields have analgesic effects in humans and it doesn’t seem to matter whether the pain is induced on the skin from outside or whether the pain is internal and associated with inflammation or disease states.
Increased sensitivity to cold vs hot temperatures were also seen in the present study with mice, although the experimental design was different. Thus, the present study used the ischemia reperfusion (IR) animal model to measure pain. Other investigators using EM fields with the IR model have shown EM fields protect the brain from ischemic damage (Wang, 2022) and improve cognitive function (Gao, 2021), but did not measure changes in their perception of pain.
The results of these studies clearly indicate the efficacy of high-frequency EM fields to reduce pain whether induced by the IR technique or not. Since EM fields are one of the many different energies emitted by the QEWB, it was of interest to determine if the multiple energies of the bed also reduce pain. The study at the Federal University in Santa Catarina clearly demonstrated reduction in pain levels in two types of pain induced by cold or pressure.
One method to compare EM energy vs QEWB energy is the magnitude of the effects produced. It’s hard to compare these different studies because they all used different protocols and all used different types (frequencies) of EM fields. Nonetheless, it appears that most EM studies produce weak effects ranging from 10 - 40%. In contrast, sensitivity to heat was reduced by 75% after 2 days and sensitivity to pressure was reduced by 60% in the present study. Thus, the QEWB can be as much as 3-fold more effective at reducing pain than classical EM fields.
In addition to the magnitude of the pain-reducing effects of EM fields, the onset is also important to consider. Most studies use an extended time frame of many weeks to determine the efficacy of EM fields. One study with Fibromyalgia patients examined pain levels after only a few days of EM treatment (Thomas, 2007). Although this is a relatively short time frame compared to other studies, it is a long time compared to the results of the present study which observed pain reduction after using the QEWB after only one hour. Therefore, we can conclude that the combination of different energies from the QEWB significantly increases the pain reducing efficacy and decreases the treatment time compared to using ordinary EM fields alone.
Daily one-hour treatments on the QEWB reduce pain levels in response to mechanical stimuli with a maximum reduction of 70% and an overall average of 55%. The efficacy of the bed continues to grow for six days. Although the magnitude of pain reduction varies from day to day, all treatments produced a statistically significant decrease. After only one treatment on the QEWB, for one hour, there was a statistically significant decrease in pain levels by 36%, but returned to baseline after four hours. Treatments for longer than one hour show no additional benefit. In contrast, ordinary EM fields require days or even weeks to show efficacy in pain reduction.
Similar effects were seen in response to cold stimuli, although the pain reduction was weaker giving a maximum reduction of 46% and an average reduction of 34%. In contrast, the QEWB was not effective at reducing pain induced by heat.
After examining the relevant scientific literature, we can conclude that the combination of different energies from the QEWB significantly increases pain reduction and decreases the treatment time compared to using ordinary EM fields alone.
Coderre TJ. Complex regional pain syndrome: what's in a name? The Journal of Pain 2011;12(1):2-12.
Gao Q, Leung A, Yang YH, et al. Extremely low frequency electromagnetic fields promote cognitive function and hippocampal neurogenesis of rats with cerebral ischemia. Neural Regeneration Research 2021;16(7):1252-9.
Ma F, Li W, Li X, et al. Novel protective effects of pulsed electromagnetic field ischemia/reperfusion injury rats. Bioscience Reports 2016;36(6):24-33.
Partyla T, Hacker H, Edinger H, et al. Remote effects of electromagnetic millimeter waves on experimentally induced cold pain: a double-blinded crossover investigation in healthy volunteers. Anesthesia & Analgesia 2017;124(3):980-5.
Ouadah, N.S., Blazy, K. and Villégier, A.S. Effect of radiofrequency electromagnetic fields on thermal sensitivity in the rat. International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health, 2020;17(20):7563-9.
Radzievsky AA, Gordiienko OV, Alekseev S, et al. Electromagnetic millimeter wave induced hypoalgesia: frequency dependence and involvement of endogenous opioids. Bioelectromagnetics: Journal of the Bioelectromagnetics Society 2008;29(4):284-95.
Rein G. Utilization of a cell culture bioassay for measuring quantum field generated from a modified caduceus coil. Proceedings of the 26th International Society of Energy Conversion and Engineering Conference, Boston, MA, 1991;4: 400–403.
Rein G. Biological effects of non-classical EM fields exhibiting quantum non-locality. In Energetic Processes: Interaction between Matter, Energy and Consciousness Vol 1. Moscow, P (ed) Xlibris Corp, NY. 2001:187-205
Rein G. Modulation of Neurotransmitter Function by Quantum Fields. In: Rethinking Neural Networks: Quantum Fields and Biological Data 2014; 8:377.
Shupak NM, Marzano MW, McKay JC, et al. Exposure to a specific pulsed low-frequency magnetic field: A double-blind placebo controlled study of effects on pain ratings in rheumatoid arthritis and fibromyalgia patients. Pain Research and Management 2006;11:85–90.