Aura Wellness Announces Breakthrough PEMF Technology for Prostate Health with 27% Size Reduction in Clinical Case Study
Louisville, Kentucky--(Newsfile Corp. - May 19, 2025) - Aura Wellness today announced groundbreaking research demonstrating the effectiveness of its Pulsed Electromagnetic Field (PEMF) technology in treating benign prostatic hypertrophy (BPH). The study, published in the Journal of Regenerative Medicine and Biology Research, showed an average 27% decrease in prostate size over 30 days with no adverse effects.
To view an enhanced version of this graphic, please visit:
https://images.newsfilecorp.com/files/10373/251904_9ea3c480f4166aa2_001full.jpg
The research, conducted by Dr. Roberta Kline from the Department of Human Nutrition and Functional Medicine at the University of Western States in association with Lennard Goetze PHD, Robert Bard MD, and Paul Dreschnak MD, examined three case studies of males with benign prostatic hyperplasia (BPH) who received pulsed electromagnetic field (PEMF) Bio Energy Technology sessions using Aura Wellness's Nova HD devices.
"My family has a history of prostate issues, and when one was told that it was their turn, we put an eight-week plan in place that was very successful, which led to further research," said Ms. Alane Ziemer Paulley, President of Aura Wellness. "This study represents a significant advancement in non-invasive approaches to a condition affecting over 80% of men by age 80."
BPH is the most common benign urological condition in males, often requiring medical or surgical interventions that can carry risks and aren't always effective. As explained by Ms. Ziemer Paulley, the Aura Wellness PEMF technology works by enhancing cellular oxygenation and blood flow to the affected area, reducing inflammation, and enabling the body to heal itself.
The research team developed a moderate dosing structure that would be comfortable for all participants and sustainable schedules that the participants could easily follow. Beyond the measurable reduction in prostate size, participants reported less pain and discomfort and improved urine flow, with initial changes typically noted within one week of starting the protocol.
"Inflammation and loss of vascular function are the root of many problems. Our model is to provide non-invasive procedures with no side effects to achieve optimum homeostasis," Ms. Ziemer Paulley noted. "In concert, this could reduce the need for surgery and the amount of drugs needed."
Aura Wellness provided and directed the operations of the Nova HD devices, while Dr. Kline and her associates independently conducted the scientific research with no further involvement from Aura Wellness. The study's independent status enhances its credibility, and its findings could have far-reaching implications for men's health.
"Any validation step forward helps the medical community accept the PEMF modality," said Ms. Ziemer Paulley. "Aura Wellness and Magnawave are actively involved in facilitating research in the human and veterinary fields."
Looking ahead, Ziemer Paulley believes that "early application as a routine could significantly reduce the onset of prostate issues," potentially transforming the standard approach to age-related prostate conditions.
Dr. Kline states: "One of the biggest challenges for healthcare professionals is that the research often lags behind our clinical knowledge and experience with new technologies. This report on a series of case studies is an important step in advancing our understanding of PEMF and its use in addressing common disorders such as BPH."
About Aura Wellness:
Founded by second-generation leader Alane Ziemer Paulley and her parents, Pat and Debi Ziemer, Aura Wellness has been a leader in advocating for the advancement of PEMF Bio-Energy Technology since its establishment as a sister company to Magnawave PEMF six years ago. The companies offer health and wellness solutions for both people and animals, utilizing PEMF and Red Light therapy. With one device already FDA 510 (k) cleared, and another is on track for clearance by mid-2025, Aura Wellness is committed to becoming a global leader in the PEMF industry.
For more information, visit https://Aurawell.com or https://MagnawavePEMF.com.
Case Study: https://tinyurl.com/pemfstudy.
Article Concepts:
Five Article Concepts Inspired by the New Aura Wellness BPH Study
"From Scalpel to Signal: How Non-Invasive PEMF Is Rewriting BPH Treatment"
Angle: Contrast traditional drug / surgical options with the study's 27 % prostate-size reduction using Nova HD PEMF sessions.
Key points to explore: the risks of current therapies, study methodology, patient‐reported benefits, and why cellular oxygenation and blood-flow modulation matter in prostate health.
"Inside the Lab: The Independent Research Team Validating Aura Wellness's Nova HD Device"
Angle: Profile Dr. Roberta Kline and colleagues, emphasizing their work's independence and how this boosts PEMF's clinical credibility.
Key points: The research design, dosing protocol, data collection, and future trials they envision. For narrative depth, include quotes from Kline, Ziemer, and Paulley.
"Beyond Pain Relief: What PEMF's Success in BPH Means for Other Age-Related Men's Health Issues"
Angle: Use the BPH findings as a springboard to discuss broader applications—ED, chronic prostatitis, pelvic pain—highlighting inflammation and vascular function as common denominators.
Key points: Mechanistic overview, existing literature, and next research frontiers Aura Wellness is exploring.
"Early Intervention, Better Outcomes: Making Routine PEMF Part of Men's Preventive Health"
Angle: Build a persuasive case for incorporating moderate-dose PEMF into regular wellness checkups for men over 40.
Key points: the epidemiology of BPH, the study's quick one-week symptom improvements, the ease of home or clinic protocols, and potential cost savings by reducing medications and surgeries.
"Family Legacy, Global Vision: How Aura Wellness Is Scaling PEMF for Human and Veterinary Care"
Angle: A business-plus-science feature on the Ziemer family's journey—from Magnawave roots to Aura Wellness's FDA-cleared pipeline and cross-species research partnerships.
Key points: Company history, red-light synergy, upcoming 510(k) milestones, and how veterinary successes inform human applications.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
CTV News
27 minutes ago
- CTV News
Despite Kennedy's claims, vaccines have been tested in placebo-controlled studies
U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly claimed that most vaccines recommended for children in the U.S. have not been tested against inert placebos. (Demetrius Freeman/Thevia CNN Newsource) U.S. Health and Human Services Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. has repeatedly claimed in public statements that most vaccines recommended for children in the U.S. have not been tested against placebos, and particularly inert placebos such as saline solution or water. 'The only vaccine that has been tested in a full-blown placebo trial against an inert placebo was the Covid vaccine,' Kennedy said May 14 in testimony before the U.S. Senate's Health, Labor, Education and Pensions Committee. 'The other 76 shots that children in this country received between birth and 18 years old, none of them have been safety tested in prelicensing studies against the placebo, which means we don't understand the risk profile for those products, and that's something I intend to remedy,' he told Sen. Chris Murphy, D-Connecticut. In 2023, Kennedy told Fox News host Jesse Watters: 'Vaccines are exempt from prelicensing placebo-controlled trials, so that there's no way that anybody can tell the risk profile of those products or even the relative benefits of those products before they're mandated. And we should have that kind of testing.' HHS is acting on Kennedy's claims, too. The department recently announced it will require all new vaccines be tested in placebo-controlled trials before they're licensed for use, a change it called 'a radical departure from past practices.' These claims made Dr. Jake Scott's ears perk up. Scott, an infectious disease specialist at Stanford University, knew that the assertions couldn't be true, and now he says he has the proof. Scott launched a project in April to round up every randomized and placebo-controlled clinical trial of vaccines in the medical literature, including studies run in other countries, since some vaccines used in the U.S. are tested overseas. It took five weeks to arrive at a number: There have been 258 randomized, controlled clinical trials of vaccines, according to Scott and a team of volunteers who scoured databases of medical literature. More than half of those studies — 153 — tested vaccines against placebos, and 127 of those studies used inert placebos. A randomized, controlled trial may use another vaccine. For their dataset, Scott said they considered a trial placebo-controlled only if the placebo didn't contain an antigen — the active vaccine ingredient. Based on Scott's research, at least nine of the 16 vaccines that are routinely recommended by the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention for children have been tested against inert placebos, while several more have been tested against active controls, such as another type of vaccine. In scientific research, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are considered to generate the highest-quality evidence. That's because they split their study participants into equal groups; some get the study intervention or treatment, while others get a placebo or dummy remedy. Placebos are often carefully designed to look, taste or even smell like the intervention that's being tested. The idea is to keep both the participants and the researchers themselves in the dark about who's getting the real thing until the end of the study, when the results are analyzed and reported, to prevent any potential bias. HHS did not respond to CNN's request for comment on the new project's findings or clarification on Kennedy's statements. Crowdsourcing vaccine research On April 22, Scott posted a link to a shared Google spreadsheet online, along with some ground rules about which trials could and couldn't be included. The studies had to be in humans; no animal studies or lab-only investigations allowed. The researchers also used a particular set of search terms, with no limits on dates, languages or pathogens. The team then read each study that was found to make sure it met the specified criteria for inclusion in the review. 'It took off,' Scott said. He estimates that the project had five or six core contributors, but they had help from around the world. Together, they scoured PubMed, the database of medical research maintained by the National Library of Medicine, as well as reference lists from Cochrane, the World Health Organization and the CDC. Dr. Isaac Bogoch, an infectious disease specialist at the University of Toronto, said he was blown away when he saw the final list of studies, which included about 2.5 million participants in total. 'The body of evidence for many of the vaccines that we use is very impressive, and the data is robust,' said Bogoch, who didn't contribute to the project. 'This type of work is extremely important in era of unprecedented vaccine hesitancy.' A 'demonstrably false' claim Scott said the research proves that Kennedy's statements are 'demonstrably false.' To understand why, it's useful to break down the parts of Kennedy's argument, which he has repeated in different iterations for years. Kennedy has shifted the goalposts, but there are a few things he has said would make a clinical trial meet his requirements: First, an inert placebo, meaning a placebo control that didn't have any biological effects on the body, like water or saline solution. Kennedy has said that without comparison to an inert placebo, the true side effects of vaccines can't be fully understood. He also uses the term 'prelicensing,' meaning the research is conducted before the U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved the vaccines. The FDA sometimes accepts enough evidence to approve a vaccine but then will require more safety studies and monitoring after approval. Kennedy and other critics argue that more safety testing should be done before the vaccines are approved in the first place. In some instances, Kennedy has also said that these studies should be large, including many participants, and long-running. In general, larger studies have greater statistical power to show subtle differences between groups. And the longer a trial follows its participants, the more confident researchers can be in the durability of their results. Although scientists agree that larger and longer clinical trials are the most reliable, these studies are expensive to conduct. They can take years to run, which delays the possibility of getting an effective intervention to people. It can also be difficult to find participants who can stick with the monitoring requirements of a study for longer periods of time. In recent testimony, however, even Kennedy seemed to be softening his stance on this particular stipulation, agreeing that other types of studies can provide solid evidence, too. 'You know that the Cochrane Collaboration in 2016 published a study that showed that the predictive capacity of placebo-controlled trials, which are the gold standard, is actually not any better than good observational trials in retrospective trials. So we can do those kind of studies without subjecting people to an unethical experiment,' Kennedy said during a May 20 Senate budget hearing when asked about the need to test established vaccines in large, lengthy placebo-controlled trials. In his 2021 book, 'The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health,' Kennedy repeats the claim that vaccines for children haven't been tested against inert placebos, saying that he and groups he's affiliated with have explicitly asked to be shown such studies. He cites two letters between the Informed Consent Action Network or ICAN, a group run by his close associate Del Bigtree, and HHS. The letter from ICAN asserts that in contrast to most other FDA-approved medications, 'vaccines are not required to undergo long-term double-blind inert-placebo controlled trials to assess safety. In fact, not a single one of the clinical trials for vaccines given to babies and toddlers had a control group receiving an inert placebo.' The HHS letter refutes this claim: 'Contrary to statements made on page two of your letter, many pediatric vaccines have been investigated in clinical trials that included a placebo.' The letter goes on to say inert placebos are not necessary to understand the safety of a new vaccine, and so they haven't been required. Still, Scott says the evidence is clear: Of the 258 randomized, controlled vaccine studies he and his colleagues found, about half – 127 – included inert placebos. When it comes to vaccines routinely recommended for children, specifically, Scott found that at least nine of the 16 on the CDC's regular schedule have been tested against inert placebos: These are the vaccines against Covid-19; rotavirus; polio; influenza; measles, mumps and rubella; human papillomavirus; varicella, or chickenpox; pneumococcal; and H-flu, or Haemophilus influenzae. One of the largest of these trials was on the polio vaccine. The placebo-controlled part of the study included more than 400,000 grade-schoolers. Half got the inactivated polio vaccine created by Dr. Jonas Salk, and the other half were given injections of an inert placebo, which was saline solution. The trial was conducted in 1954, and the results were announced in April 1955. So great was the urgency to get the vaccine to kids that the FDA licensed it the same day. 'It's frankly astounding that someone who made such easily disprovable claims is now heading HHS and continues to promote similar misinformation,' Scott said of Kennedy in an email to CNN. 'We compiled this evidence specifically to counter these false narratives with hard data.' Scott says he and his colleagues hope to have their project published in peer-reviewed medical journal soon. For now, it's available in a publicly posted spreadsheet. Vaccines In scientific research, randomized, placebo-controlled clinical trials are considered to generate the highest-quality evidence. (via CNN Newsource_ Active controls vs. inert placebos Vaccine trials that don't use inert placebos will sometimes use what are known as active controls. These comparison shots have some biological effect but don't interfere with scientists' ability to interpret the results of their study. Active controls are used for a variety of reasons. In some parts of the world, for example, where it might be difficult to recruit participants, researchers might give the control group an unrelated vaccine to make sure they're getting some benefit by enrolling in the study. One study published last year in the Lancet, testing a vaccine against malaria, gave participants in the control group a vaccine against rabies instead. Rabies vaccines don't protect against malaria, so they wouldn't interfere with researchers' ability to tell whether the malaria shot actually worked. Other types of controls in the studies in Scott's project included shots that contained only an adjuvant, an ingredient that's added to vaccines to trigger a stronger immune response. Dr. Greg Poland, who studies how adults and children respond to vaccines at the Mayo Clinic, said it would be a mistake to assume that active controls can't be valid and rigorous ways to test vaccines. Adjuvants, such as aluminum, are often the reason people get soreness around an injection site. Giving just the adjuvant can guard against even psychological bias in control participants who might guess that they didn't get a real vaccine if they didn't feel anything after their shots. It also allows researchers to isolate the benefits and side effects of the vaccine, since everyone got the adjuvant. 'You're literally saying, 'OK, we're testing a vaccine that has ingredient A plus B against a non-vaccine placebo that has ingredient B.' So the only thing different between the two of them is the actual vaccine,' Poland said. An active comparator might also be used rather than an inert placebo because of ethics. When there's already a vaccine that's considered to be safe and effective against an infection, it's considered unethical to deny study participants the chance to get it. In that case, companies that want to test a new and improved version of a vaccine against an older one would normally have to offer participants in their control group the older vaccine. Many modern vaccines have been compared against older versions of the same vaccine. Flu vaccines are a good example, Poland says. If you were testing an improved type of flu vaccine, chances are that the board that oversees your clinical trial wouldn't approve a study that used an inert placebo – especially if you were testing it in a vulnerable group, like people over 65, for whom an infection is more likely to be dangerous. 'It's unethical because the recommendation is that everyone, each flu season, receive an influenza vaccine. So it'd be unethical to enroll people in a study where they may just get placebo and not get any benefit of protection,' Poland said. Poland said he's been puzzled by Kennedy's statements, too. He's concerned that they are getting traction with the public now that Kennedy is the head of the nation's health agencies. 'This notion that there are no placebo-controlled vaccine trials is patently false, but it's a really interesting phenomenon that I have a hard time understanding,' he said. Article by Brenda Goodman.
CBC
an hour ago
- CBC
Doctors Manitoba cheers changes to help U.S. physicians relocate to province
Regulatory changes intended to make it easier for U.S.-based physicians to relocate and practice in Manitoba are being loudly applauded by an advocacy group in the province. "We're really excited about it. Manitoba has one of the worst doctor shortages in the country, and as practising physicians, we see the consequences of this every day," said Doctors Manitoba president Nichelle Desilets. The College of Physicians and Surgeons of Manitoba and the provincial government recently took steps to streamline the process for qualified physicians from the United States to be granted a full licence to practice in the province, provided they meet certain requirements. They have to first complete an accredited residency program, have certification from the American Board of Medical Specialists and have a licence from a U.S. state medical board. "The training that American physicians undergo is very similar to a Canadian physician. I would even say nearly identical," said Desilets, who practises in Neepawa. "There is much more in common than there is different." Processes the government and college have agreed to remove include things like requiring supervisors and formal assessments, and restrictions on where a new doctor can practise — which can all be costly and time-consuming. Doctors Manitoba advocated for such changes more than a year ago, Desilets said. "Manitoba has been behind in making these changes, so it's really great to see that we're catching up on that," Desilets said. B.C., Saskatchewan, New Brunswick, Nova Scotia and P.E.I. have already simplified the process, she said. It's also important to underscore the fact that none of the changes will compromise the quality of patient care, she said. "The public should still be reassured that there is still a rigorous process making sure that every doctor that practises in Manitoba is qualified to do so and has been vetted by our college." The province has also followed the lead of Doctors Manitoba by launching recruitment campaigns in the U.S. The provincial government is targeting health-care workers in the nearby states of Michigan, Minnesota, North Dakota and South Dakota, touting Manitoba's strengths and priorities, including safe and inclusive communities, good schools, strong social supports and comparable affordability with a high quality of life. Doctors Manitoba had ramped up its own recruitment efforts late last year with a similar message in an effort to appeal to physicians in search of stability and respect after Donald Trump was elected U.S. president. "We have the privilege of working in an environment where the government doesn't generally get in between us and our patients, so that was the kind of the selling point that we brought," Desilets said. "We're grateful to see that our public advocacy efforts were able to influence government stakeholders and our own regulatory college to take a look at all of the requirements and to kind of take our lead." She couldn't say, though, if the efforts have prompted anyone to relocate north of the border. "As a front-line working doctor, I wouldn't be privy to that knowledge, but we do know that our office has had people reach out to inquire about the process and what the work environment looks like," Desilets said. "Despite the flaws in our health-care system, and I acknowledge that there are many of them, I am safe when I go to work, I know that the government is going to pay me for the services that I provide to patients, and I know that I have an organization that backs me and my colleagues up when we go to work every day." Doctors Manitoba will continue to promote those benefits through its own recruitment efforts in news media interviews, advertisements, and the website ManitobaMD.com. While the push to open the door more to American doctors is welcome, it's only one aspect of addressing the shortage, Desilets said. The barriers between provinces need to be dealt with, as well. "Even though people expect health care to be nationally available to them, it's still administered on a provincial level. So this is a barrier to recruiting physicians to Manitoba, no matter where you're coming from," she said. "The fact that we don't have enough doctors to serve our population is a multi-pronged challenge. There's not one golden answer … and we're going to continue to advocate. We need more doctors, we need more specialists."
CTV News
2 hours ago
- CTV News
‘Inevitably going to implode': Here's what experts think about Trump and Musk's relationship as it unravels online
Psychologist Simon Sherry shares what he thinks may be behind public fallouts in the wake of Trump and Musk's online fight. It may be the most high-profile breakup between two of the most powerful and richest men in the world. Donald Trump and Elon Musk, who not too long ago was a strong ally and adviser to the U.S. president, captured the world's attention this week with their war of words on social media, including X, which Musk owns. What could be happening with the alliance between two of the world's most influential men, or what could similar feuds mean? reached out to a wide variety of experts, from a psychologist to Trump's biographer, asking what they think. Simon Sherry, a registered psychologist, said he couldn't speak directly about Trump or Musk since he has not assessed or diagnosed them. However, he said he could speak of individuals who may have certain personality traits and relationship styles that could lead to a similar public fallout. Sherry says people who exhibit narcissistic qualities generally 'don't play nicely' with each other. 'Speaking in general terms, when two narcissistic individuals interact, it often becomes a struggle for dominance,' Sherry, a professor from the department of psychology and neuroscience at Dalhousie University in Halifax, said in a video interview with on Friday. 'So if you've got traits like grandiosity and entitlement, you have a great need for admiration.' 'So if you've traits like grandiosity and entitlement, you have a great need for admiration.' These types of individuals may also be 'low on empathy' and 'cold' during interactions, he adds. 'And if you have that cold and unempathetic style, it's more likely that you're going to escalate conflict, as opposed to move toward repairing a relationship or any sort of a reconciliation.' Bree McEwan, a communication professor at the University of Toronto Mississauga, told in a video interview Friday that the public unravelling between Trump and Musk raises questions. 'This is perhaps an unusual moment where we're having power players in the U.S. government air out all of their beef in online settings,' said McEwan, who specializes in social media's role in personal communication and public discourse. 'It does allow for a lot of conversation and chatter to occur around their discussion, but it also brings up the question of how much of this is a performance, who's that performance for, and how much of this is sort of serious business of these major players,' McEwan added. The high-profile feud also has significant consequences, she adds. 'From a responsibility perspective, when you are two major players whose every action has a huge influence on world markets, there's a point here where maybe you should be picking up the phone and talking to each other, maybe have a conversation in the Oval Office,' she said. Breakup was 'inevitable': Trump biographer Marc Fisher, co-author of the 2016 book 'Trump Revealed: An American Journey of Ambition, Ego, Money, and Power,' called the duo's breakup 'inevitable.' 'This is a case of two wealthy and narcissistic billionaires, who are very accustomed to having the spotlight entirely to themselves and find that, when someone challenges them, they tend to push back pretty hard,' Fisher said in a video interview with on Friday. He added that the fallout 'makes perfect sense,' with Musk moving on as a top White House adviser. 'He had endangered his own businesses by devoting himself entirely to his time in Washington, and so he's now abandoned Trump and Trump doesn't like that,' he said. 'He doesn't like when people separate from him or critique him in any way, and so we have this battle of the wits and battle of the wills going that very much reflects the personalities of both men.' Both Musk and Trump are prone to 'overreactions' and 'emotional reactions,' Fisher added. 'Both of them see this kind of dispute as something that ought to play out in public, because that gives them even more attention, and attention is really the currency by which they measure their own success,' he said. Fisher adds that the public fight positions Trump as standing up to a billionaire, while Musk may be trying to prove to his stockholders that he's paying attention to his business. 'Neither of them has much to lose here,' he said. 'A marriage of convenience' Fisher doesn't believe Trump and Musk had a genuine connection. 'It was a marriage of convenience, really more of an accident than anything else, doomed from the start,' Fisher said. 'It's the kind of relationship that was perhaps mutually beneficial for a short time but was inevitably going to implode.' For Trump, Musk provided 'extraordinary energy' to allow Trump and his officials to show they were 'really tearing the federal government apart,' Fisher said, noting Trump seems to have less energy now than during his first administration. 'For Musk, this was an opportunity to push forward his business interests, get in close with the president who had a significant sway over whether large government contracts, which are at the heart of Musk's operations, would come his way and stay with his companies,' Fisher said. 'And so this was really, something that seemed mutually beneficial for a time.' 'Kerosene being thrown on this fire' Jeffrey Dvorkin, a media observer and former director of the journalism program at University of Toronto, had some ideas on what may be happening with the insults between the two men online. He called social media the 'kerosene being thrown on this fire.' 'I think that what we're seeing is the acting out of these unresolved issues that stem from childhood, but now have a terrible impact on the rest of us,' the senior fellow of Massey College at the University of Toronto said in a video interview with on Friday, referring to their 'very demanding' fathers. 'It is a destabilizing situation in the United States in the American government, which is never good for anybody.' Meanwhile, he said Musk is 'a disruptor.' 'He's throwing his toys around the room, hoping someone will pick up after him,' Dvorkin said. 'There may be some rationalization of what they're doing and why they're doing it, but I think deep down, we're dealing with two deeply flawed people, who have never really learned how to play well with others.' But Dvorkin sees one benefit in the feud. 'The only advantage I can see is that Canada now has a new prime minister who seems to be a grown up, the adult in the room, and he will now be able to exercise a level of control that maybe the previous prime minister was unable or unwilling to do,' he said.
