Effects of exposure to electromagnetic potential pulsed at the Schumann fundamental frequency on patients with chronic fatigue syndrome

Original Internist, Sept, 2003 by Guy E. Abraham, Christine L. Fagan, Peter B. Himmel

Table 1

Demographic and clinical data on the two groups of CFS patients

                             EM Field          EM Potential
                           (19 patients)      (20 patients)
                           x [  or -] SE      x [  or -] SE

Age                      50.7 [  or -] 1.8    54.2 [  or -] 2.7
Height (inches)          65.5 [  or -] 0.66   63.9 [  or -] 0.60
Weight (lbs.)            74 [  or -] 10 - 6   154.7 [  or -] 8.8
Duration of Illness      3.7 [  or -] 0.39    4.5 [  or -] 0.7
(years)

Baseline Scores

   1) Overall
      Well-being         4.2 [  or -] 0.5     5.1 [  or -] 0.5
   2) Pain               3.9 [  or -] 0.6     4.8 [  or -] 0.5
   3) Fatigue            3.4 [  or -] 0.5     4.0 [  or -] 0.6
   4) Brain Fog          4.1 [  or -] 0.5     5 [  or -] 0.5
   5) Cognitive Impact   25 [  or -] 2        24 [  or -] 2
   6) Physical Impact    27 [  or -] 1.6      25 [  or -] 1.6
   7) Romberg Test       0.47 [  or -] 0.2    0.45 [  or -] 0.19
   8) Tandem Walking     0.6 [  or -] 0.2     0.9 [  or -] .25

                                    p value

Age                                    NS
Height (inches)                       <.05
Weight (lbs.)                          NS
Duration of Illness                    NS
(years)

Baseline Scores

   1) Overall
        Well-being                       NS
   2) Pain                             NS
   3) Fatigue                          NS
   4) Brain Fog                        NS
   5) Cognitive Impact                 NS
   6) Physical Impact                  NS
   7) Romberg Test                     NS
   8) Tandem Walking                   NS

Table II
Effect of Exposure to EM Field (Placebo) and EM Potential (Unit I)
on Some Selected Symptoms in 14 Patients with CFS

Parameter Evaluated   Baseline                Placebo
                      x [   or - ] SE         x [   or - ] SE

Overall
Well-being **         3.7 [   or - ] 0.4      3.9 [   or - ] 0.3
Pain                  2.9 [   or - ] 0.45     4.2 [   or - ] 0.59
Fatigue               3.4 [   or - ] 0.41     3.9 [   or - ] 0.5
Brain Fog             3.0 [   or - ] 0.48     4.1 [   or - ] 0.56
Cognitive Impact      29.6 [   or - ] 1.6     27.7 [   or - ] 1.7
Physical
Impact **             31.9 [   or - ] 1.5     30.4 [   or - ] 1.6
Romberg Test *        2.4 [   or - ] 0.23     1.6 [   or - ] 0.25
Tandem Walking *      0.71 [   or - ] 0.22    1.0 [   or - ] 0.21

                      Unit I                  Placebo vs. Unit I
                      x [   or - ] SE           t       p

Overall
Well-being **         4.7 [   or - ] 0.2       4.1   0.001 **
Pain                  3.8 [   or - ] 0.7       0.5   0.62
Fatigue               4.2 [   or - ] 0.62      1.0   0.33
Brain Fog             3.7 [   or - ] 0.57      1.2   0.26
Cognitive Impact      25.4 [   or - ] 2.2      1.6   0.14
Physical
Impact **             26.6 [   or - ] 1.7      3.7   0.003 **
Romberg Test *        0.93 [   or - ] 0.17     2.2   0.045 *
Tandem Walking *      0.64 [   or - ] 0.2      2.7   0.019 *

* = p value less than 0.05

** = p value less than 0.01

Table III
Effect of Exposure to Electromagnetic Potential Energy from 3
Different Emitters on Some Selected Symptoms in 19 Patients with CFS

Parameter Evaluated      Baseline               Unit I
                         x [  or - ] SE         x [  or - ] SE

Overall Well-being *     2.47 [  or - ] 0.48    4.96 [  or - ] 0.55
Pain *                   2.25 [  or - ] 0.38    4.04 [  or - ] 0.47
Fatigue *                2.16 [  or - ] 0.23    3.18 [  or - ] 0.38
Brain Fog*               2.6 [  or - ] 0.4      4.75 [  or - ] 0.42
Cognitive Impact **      27.9 [  or - ] 1.77    23.1 [  or - ] 1.8
Physical Impact **       29.4 [  or - ] 1.71    24.3 [  or - ] 1.71
Romberg Test ***         0.79 [  or - ] 0.22    0.84 [  or - ] 0.22
Tandem Walking ***       1.05 [  or - ] 0.26    0.53 [  or - ] 0.19

Parameter Evaluated      Unit                   Unit
                         x [  or - ] SE         x [  or - ] SE

Overall Well-being *     4.84 [  or - ] 0.58    6.58 [  or - ] 0.48
Pain *                   4.46 [  or - ] 0.49    5.7 [  or - ] 0.59
Fatigue *                4.27 [  or - ] 0.45    4.74 [  or - ] 0.48
Brain Fog *              4.49 [  or - ] 0.51    6.5 [  or - ] 0.51
Cognitive Impact **      22.7 [  or - ] 2.24    21.6 [  or - ] 2.17
Physical Impact **       22.8 [  or - ] 1.92    23.8 [  or - ] 2.0
Romberg Test ***         0.74 [  or - ] 0.21    0.37 [  or - ] 0.16
Tandem Walking ***       0.68 [  or - ] 0.22    0.37 [  or - ] 0.18

* = Analog scale: 0 = worse; 10 = best

** = Whole number scoring: 0 = best; 40 = worse

*** = Whole number scoring: 0 = best; 3 = worse

Table IV
Statistical Evaluation of Data in Table III

                         Baseline       Baseline
                        vs Unit I      vs Unit II
Parameter Evaluated     t      p       t      p

Overall Well-being     3.6   0.002    4.0   0.001
Pain                   3.3   0.004    4.2   <0.001
Fatigue                2.3   0.033    5.2   <0.001
Brain Fog              5.6   <0.001   4.8   <0.001
Cognitive Impact       4.4   <0.001   4.4   <0.001
Physical Impact        3.9   0.001    6.0   <0.001
Romberg Test           0.37  0.72     0.37  0.72
Tandem Walking         3.3   0.004    2.1   0.049

                          Baseline      UNIT I
                        vs Unit III    vs Unit II
Parameter Evaluated     t      p       t      p

Overall Well-being     7.9   <.001    0.19   0.85
Pain                   6.6   <0.001   0.87   0.40
Fatigue                5.5   <0.001   2.7    0.016
Brain Fog              8.4   <0.001   0.51   0.62
Cognitive Impact       7.7   <0.001   0.44   0.66
Physical Impact        4.3   <0.001   1.0    0.32
Romberg Test           3.0   0.007    0.81   0.43
Tandem Walking         4.4   <0.001   1.8    0.083

                           UNIT I        UNIT II
                        vs Unit III    vs Unit III
Parameter Evaluated     t      p       t      p

Overall Well-being     3.1    0.007   4.9    <.001
Pain                   2.4    0.03    2.0    0.062
Fatigue                3.8    0.001   1.3    0.22
Brain Fog              5.0    <.001   5.9    <.001
Cognitive Impact       1.2    0.27    0.92   0.37
Physical Impact        0.25   0.82    0.62   0.55
Romberg Test           3.4    0.003   3.2    0.005
Tandem Walking         1.8    0.083   2.9    0.01

Table V
Correlation between the Scores for Overall Well-being
and the Scores for the Other 7 Parameters Studied during
Baseline Values and Following 12 Weeks of Exposure to EM Potential
in 19 CFS Patients

                   Baseline       After 12 weeks of exposure
                                      to EM potential
Parameter       PCC *   p Value   PCC *   p Value

Pain             .517   .023     .532   .019
Fatigue          .758   <.001    .705   .001
Brain Fog        .634   .004     .646   <.001
Physical         .618   .005     .336   .160
Cognitive        .515   .024     .626   .004
Romberg          .192   .43      .145   .555
Tandem Walking   .105   .669     .343   .160

* PCC = Pearson Correlation Coefficient