Talk:Magnet therapy/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Pseudoscience

"Magnetic therapy falls into the realm of pseudoscience. This does not invalidate or validate accusations made about its healing properties." Yes it bloody well does! And why is this considered part of WikiProject Physics?88.108.102.12 22:22, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Advertising

I hope this expands your intellectual curiosity and increases your awareness of what magnetic fields and their benefits have to all living systems - human, animals and plant life.

Actually, there are a number of research studies that has shown Magnet therapy to be effective treatment for the human brain. The catch is that the magnetic padding belts being peddled don't work. You have to go to a hospital, or wherever, and receive periodic magnetic treatments. --John Gohde, aka Mr-Natural-Health 20:30, 1 May 2004 (UTC)

Can you give me links to these research studies on magnet therapy for the human brain?dave 04:08, 6 Jan 2005 (UTC)

http://www.cnn.com/HEALTH/9803/20/magnets.depression/index.html http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/Health/story?id=765933&page=1 http://www.healthyplace.com/Communities/depression/treatment/tms/index.asp I don't know if these links are good enough, but they should lead you to some of the exciting research that is happening in this area of using magnetic therapy on the brain. Some people think that the world is flat - it's their priviledge. George Tarr

Good bit on rTMS. It was also evaluated as a possible non-invasive way of evaluating upper motor neurone function rather than using an emg. It's undergoing trials in several psychiatric conditions. Also used experimentally in normal subjects to temporarily "switch off" specific brain areas e.g. language processing, visual discrimination, etc. I don't have enough expertise to write this up but it might be good to have more on non-quack uses. --PaulWicks 21:55, 11 September 2005 (UTC)

Pypex, as much as I think magnet therapy is rubbish, the paper he cites does exist. It was prospective, had adequate followup, good blinding and had been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Due to drop-out the numbers remaining at 1-year followup appear to my eyes too small to be statistically meaningful (8 in active group, 5 in placebo) to use Student's T-Test as they did, and the operation of the Neotonus chair was not adequately explained. Also the use of visual analogue scales should be criticised and a validated clinical measure would have been preferable. So that particular part of the article is not POV, and in fact removing it may have been POV in itself, even though I happen to agree with you! --PaulWicks 10:32, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Sorry about that, just looked like a rather extensive rant to me. If anyone wants to start citing said papers then feel free.--Pypex 20:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Ok, i found a link to a short article about what the promoters of this type of therapy seemd to believe about block magnets vs disk magnets when it comes to this form of 'therapy'. link is here:block magnets vs disk magnets. Its an ecommerce site, so could someone else check it out and see if it's worth link to on the main page, even if to give an idea of that these people believe? - Shanada12:23, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

81.96.12.107 added a link to a (probably his) blog: http://www.magnetictherapy.info/ I have removed it as I feel it doesn't add any really useful information. Shanada 09:50, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

Does the link to http://www.healthjewelryplus.com/catalog/articles.php?tPath=10 meet the standards of viewpoint nuetrality, since the link is to a website that sells magnetic therapy items? JakeApple 14:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

No magnet healing product manufacturers have demonstrated scientifically that they actually achieve what they claim, and most cannot even agree on what exactly the magnetic fields do. Some claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by some interaction with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. However, in its ionised form, iron is not ferromagnetic. If it were, use of magnetic resonance imaging would instantaneously kill patients.[1]

Re: 'Criticism'

I find the following misleading:-

'No magnet healing product manufacturers have demonstrated scientifically that they actually achieve what they claim, and most cannot even agree on what exactly the magnetic fields do. Some claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by some interaction with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. However, in its ionised form, iron is not ferromagnetic. If it were, use of magnetic resonance imaging would instantaneously kill patients.[1] '

As the link itself shows, magnetic fields have a paramagnetic effect on the body. And re:-

'It should be noted that many, if not most, of the websites that provide information and resources promoting the benefits of magnetic therapy belong to individuals and companies that profit from the sale of magnetic therapy products.'

Perhaps it should also be noted that such individuals and companies appear to be too busy to promote their cause in this Wikipedia article and its related discussion. Etaonsh 14:35, 2 May 2006 (UTC)

Contradiction and bias

There is an apparent clear contradiction between the article's doctrinaire 'debunking school' rant and the inconclusive results of impartial studies in the links. Etaonsh 21:20, 3 May 2006 (UTC)

'Pseudoscience'?

On the basis of the above discussion, I move that we retract the introductory remarks re 'is apseudoscientific...' on the grounds of insufficient conclusive evidence. I have no objection to someone cleaning it up with evidence of how it has been used in that way in the past, tho.Etaonsh 18:23, 4 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Etaonsh for discussing your proposal before editing. I can't, unfortunately, say we have consensus on your proposal. If you check this talk page and the external quack links you will see that the description is quite accurate. I'd be very unhappy to remove the reference. You may like to discuss this on the wikipedia skeptics project (I can't recall the exact name at the moment).Mccready 18:05, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Well of course I discuss the proposal before editing - that seems to be the civilised consensual approach at Wikipedia, quite apart from the fact that it is imposed by heavy administration. But the article, as it stands, with its pig-headed, provincial adherence to a 'debunking' approach in the face of creeping, linked evidence to the contrary, is scarcely civilised or NPOV. There seems to be a widespread, cancerous misunderstanding of the nature and practice of scepticism in parts of the English-speaking world, itself resembling a manifestation of quackery and make-believe (emphasis on 'make'!). Etaonsh 22:29, 5 May 2006 (UTC)

Accuracy tag

What facts, exactly, are currently in dispute?

Is part of it the issue about ferromagnetism vs. paramagnetism? The article should focus on actual claims, not strawperson arguments. Can anyone find a reference to a claim of a ferromagnetic effect, or one that conflates the two? Most retailers I've encountered have rather muddled or vague explanations. If there are any published claims that correctly distinguish between ferromagnetic and paramagnetic effects, references should be added. There are other "debunking" arguments already in the article that would be relevant to such a claim, and it would be illuminating for those not familiar with the science of electromagnetism to show exactly where various claims conflict.

This perhaps is a constructive focus to bring this article to NPOV: list the hypothetically possible interactions that might generate some effect on the human body: ferromagnetism, paramagnetism, diamagnetism, magnetohydrodynamics on flowing blood, etc, back up that there is a claim that this effect is or is not responsible, and cite it and any confirming or contradictory material. (Incidentally magnetic water softening suffers from a similar situation -- unsupported claims by vendors, reactionary attacks by "debunkers" and a paultry amount of geniune scientific discourse. http://www.chem1.com/CQ/magscams.html, and might be a related phemonoma, if indeed it is a phenomina at all. I think the linked page shows what a more NPOV article might resemble.) (71.233.165.69 01:11, 19 May 2006 (UTC))

With regard to effectiveness, This article correctly distinguishes between the two, and cites one double-blind but in some ways questionable study at Baylor College which found the therapy to be effective that had not been replicated at press time. It also cites other studies where no non-placebo benefit was found.Another link exposes additional criticism of the Baylor study's lack of adequate controls, and points to other, better-designed studies that found no benefit. So, unless there are other review articles to the contrary, it would seem accurate to say that the scientific consensus favors the idea that magnetic therapy is not effective.

Likewise, it's also fairly well established that lots of people think it is effective, and use it, so...

-- Beland 08:03, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Hello, Beland. I agree with you up to a point about retailers (one of them, for example, recently assured me that nickel was an alloy!), but similar criticisms could be levelled e.g., at car salespeople. The real issue is that the article comes down hard against magnet therapy, which at least two of the links and some of the 'Talk' here contradicts, whereas the true scientific, consensual position is actually currently one of 'not proven' rather than 'disproved.'Paramagnetism, the effect of magnets on surrounding molecules, implies some basis for apossible healing or otherwise effect on the body - but to imply 'no effect,' which the article in its current form appears to, is simply scientifically inaccurate. The statement, 'Criticism of these products focuses on scientific facts about magnets, including the claim that the typical magnet used in a bracelet purchased over-the-counter is not powerful enough to penetrate human skin,' for example, seems nothing more than an expression of personal/collective ignorance re theParamagnetic Effect. Etaonsh 08:24, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

Your implication that "not proven" is somehow weaker than "disproven" shows a lack of understanding of the principles of scientific reasoning.

? No it doesn't. And your failure to sign critical comments is sniperish. If something is scientifically disproved it is obviously to a newt much stronger than failing to prove it.Etaonsh 07:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

You can never, using true scientific methods, "disprove" anything. Scientifically, there could possibly be floating pink elephants all around you, but it is "not proven". When something has been studied and studied using double random, double blind, and highly controlled studies, and no effects are found, the effects have still not been "disproven," but have been extremely "not proven." In reality, there is no scientific distinction between "not proven" and "disproven." CatastrophicToad 09:46, 7 June 2006 (UTC)(I am not the author of the preceding anonymous comment)

In science extremely not proven is disproven. Science has lower standards than mathamatics.Jefffire 12:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you are both incorrect. Opinionated insinuation without cited evidence, as exemplified so amply here by CatastrophicToad, forms no part of the scientific method, and true science is not inferior to maths in the way Jefffire would like to suggest. Etaonsh 22:13, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The real question is why should we leave claims that magnetic therapy works, when , and you admitted this yourself, it was not proven. Do we have to leave every ridiculous claims that X does Y when there's no proof of that. Michael Gorbachev murdered Bob Smith with a laser beam while on a trip to Spain in 1973. If 250 359 people made websites about this, should an encyclopedia try to pass this as fact never mentioning that the idea Gorbachev murdered Smith is completely unsupported, that all the "evidence" for the "murder" is of piss poor quality, and that lasers (at the time) weren't powerful enough do any kind of damage other perhaps that skin burn.

The fact is that claims of "magnetic healing properties" are always made by people completely uneducated in science and have no idea what the magnetic properties of the bracelet would actually do (does it kill bacteria, and virii? does is facilitate blood flow? ...) other than vaguely saying it "heals". Its strongest proponents are manufacturers (will do anything for cash) and alternative medicine freaks (will take anything over real medicine as soon as someone says that X could maybe perhaps do something about ailment Y and aren't interested in hearing that X won't do anything about Y). The studies who show an "effect" are always done with a small sample of people, and are more often than not plagued with bad science (no double blind, no quantifiable measures of anything, no placebo control...) and there's as many if not a truckload more studies showing that magnetic bracelets (or necklaces or whatever) do nothing at all.

It has all the characteristics of pseudoscience and many of cargo cult-science, while having none of science. I say put a big fat pseudoscience tag right on top and write the article according to what an encyclopedia would right about a pseudoscience article.Headbomb (ταλκ ·κοντριβς) 16:05, 16 May 2008 (UTC)

Are there really any such claims left? The Efficacy section should probably be converted into prose, which could better emphasize that the balance of evidence (ignoring the usual statistical noise from small or methodologically unsound studies) is that the effects are exactly what basic physics predicts - null. The Criticism section certainly should be converted into prose, but that is purely a stylistic issue. We have a pseudoscience infobox, though pretty much everyone seems to agree that it is kinda ugly; it is not very much used, and apparently has not attracted the attention of any of our graphic design oriented rational skeptics. We have plenty of quality sources indicating that magnet therapy is "generally considered pseudoscience", which per WP:PSCI is sufficient to categorize it as such. - Eldereft~(s)talk~ 16:52, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

Does it Matter ?

Magnotherapy does you no harm, so whether there is scientific proof or not, if someone believes it is doing them good, and providing :-

They understand that is

• Not a replacement for conventional medicine.
• They do not ignore the advice of their Doctors.
• They deal with a reputable company that offers a 90 money back guarantee if they are not satisfied.

What's the harm in it ?

I know several people (including my Wife) who swear blind that a magnotherapy bracelet or pad has helped them with various aches & pains, and would not be without them.

It may, or may not be a placebo affect. Does it matter ?

The only important thing is that they feel better, and as a result most probably consume fewer Paracetamol, Asprin and Ibuprofen etc, because of it!!

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Magnet_therapy"

Yes, it does matter (but don't tell the wife!). Etaonsh 05:02, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

I am at present undertaking a trial of magnetotherapy. Ill report when its complete--Light current 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I have completed the trial and the results in my case are very favorable. Most symptoms have reduced from severity 7 to 9 down to 1 - 2. Of course my result on its own means nothing, but the manfs are doing a statistical trial in which I have taken part.--Light current 21:22, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

A statistical trial only makes sense if it is a Double blind study. Otherwise the results are rubbish. Philipp 12:35, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It may do a certain degree of harm to your wallet. And to your faith in reason...Narssarssuaq 16:04, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

If it is Science

Then what exactly is the science? What exactly is it (the wearing of tiny stagnant magnets on the body) physically doing that helps anyone beyond the placebo effect of making them think its helping? If no one can answer that or show a study that actually proves and explains what scientifically it does. Then it is psudoscience or a product based an unproven claim of being scientificly based. It doesn't matter what people feel or think it does, or if they believe or not. We have to define what it actually is, to do that we need to know what it actually is doing if anything.

You state elsewhere: 'As a wikipedian my primary objective is NPOV... If you know of a page which you suspect may be POV, please let me know.' Well in my view, science should be objective and approach things with an informed, open mind. How does this square with your polemical use of epithets like 'tiny' and 'stagnant,' above? Did you actually read the rest of the discussion, e.g., re paramagnetic effects? It is illogical and unscientific to conclude, from an alleged lack of supporting evidence, 'then it is a pseudoscience.' My understanding of the alternative sector is that many individuals implement elements of the scientific method without it always constituting formal, peer-reviewed research; but it doesn't mean it can therefore be easily dismissed by a graduate ego who reads like he's had a bad lunch. Many scientific discoveries had their origin in claims from the alternative sector. --Etaonsh 17:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Hang on

... Whats this contributor doing advertising a specific company ....I thought you were not allowed to advertise on Wikipedia. -- Alanpat 15:18, 12 August 2006

(The contributor was 216.165.248.34) -- Fyslee 19:39, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Well caught. It looks like covert spamming. I'll remove it. Jefffire 15:22, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Re advertising/spamming: it is part of the alternative culture to try to sell, just as it is part of the 'scientific' culture to be subsidised by commandeered public money to slow-poison lab rats. Which of these gives us a choice? --Etaonsh 17:05, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Just to ensure I don't misunderstand you, please elaborate. -- Fyslee 19:30, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I accept that Alanpat is upholding an existing Wikipedia policy, andJefffire is executing it, but I could do without the celebratory triumphalism. After all, it is an attack on a means of income from arguably a worse means of income.--Etaonsh 19:51, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Magnets and blood flow

Magnets also increase bloodflow: http://www.vanderbilt.edu/AnS/psychology/health_psychology/biomagnetic_therapy.htm From Vanderbilt, a reputable University. --68.49.229.252 18:46, 15 August 2006

A student paper that debunks magnet therapy is certainly interesting, but it hardly qualifies as a reliable source. Please provide good references to scientific research on the subject of magnets and blood flow. Maybe the paper listed some? Keep in mind the difference between ordinary magnets and electromagnets. -- Fyslee 22:03, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, if blood contains ions, then they will be affected by magnets provided the direction is perpendicular right? According to Flemings Left Hand Rule

What does that have to do with anything? --Storkk 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Disputed tag

I removed the disputed tag, I also changed the wording of the disputed sentence. It is not disputed that "most" of the scientific and medical communities regard it as a pseudoscience [Note: This comment was self-edited before any replies were made]--Storkk 19:01, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Dispute Resolution

As part of wikipedia's standard of dispute resolution avoidance is the first step towards resolving a dispute. I must unfortunately state that this article is creating a dispute because of POV pushing on behalf of users:Storkk.

assumption:

• I must assume your point of view is that the article Electromagnetic therapy should fall within magnet therapy.
• I must also assume that you POV is that such devices of methodes of treatement are not a valid method of treatment

These assumptions are based on the fact that you have removed perfectly cited information witch contradicts you POV and calling the edit "RM Spam". [[2]]

User:Modemac decided to merge the article Electromagnetic therapy to Magnet therapy without discussion.

• I highly object to the the merger of Electromagnetic therapy to Magnet therapy. The reason is that we have inherently two different subjects. Usualy when we talk about magnet therapy most common people think about magnets being place on the side of your temple to avoid headacks. When we talk about electromagnetic therapy, this involves some sort of electrical device that generate an electro magnetic field. as I had indicated on the top of the previous version of electromagnetic therapy, this therapy encompasses:

Electromagnetic therapy, also known as electromagnetism, bioelectricity,magnetobiology, magnetic field therapy and magnetic healing. (According to cancer.ucsd.edu)

Technically Modemac jumped the gun by merging this article. I believe that Electromagnetic therapy would not encopass magnet therapy because we don't currently have sufficient evidence (or POV) supporting this.

All this to say that because of the "lack of avoidance" there is now probably more than just I, but a bunch of frustrated users trying to anxiously get their say.

Frustatingly, it seems, as indicated above with the removal of Multiple Sclerosis information, that there is a WP:POV pushing here to exclude any information (POV's) in regards to "experts opinion" on the beneficial aspect of electromagnetic therapy. This article is bias because it is seemingly focusing on the negative studies. What is the major belief of EMT?

Since we have failled the avoidance step of disputes we should begin by discussion. Hopefully from now on we can "avoid" dispute by "discussion." Please let's try and make this article NPOV or at least equal and fair in POV's. --72.57.8.155 15:40, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Disagree if you must, but don't spam tags. It's disruptive, and thus a violation of Wikipedia policy WP:POINT. Jefffire 15:56, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

And please don't accuse me of pov pushing. WP:AGF. I did nothing of the sort. I removed a ridiculous number of tags, WITH explanation on the talk page (something that didn't happen after they got put up again). I had edited it so that in my opinion, the POV problem had been taken care of, and therefore removed the tags. There were 10 (!) tags, all overlapping in meaning. Please see WP:POINT. --Storkk 16:22, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

This merge proposal is now listed on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#October_2006 so that a consensus may be reached. johnpseudo 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

At the abovementioned Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers, the following comments were made:

• Propose to merge Electromagnetic therapy into Magnetic therapy. This merge was performed once before, but was reverted and is currently disputed on Talk:Magnet therapy. Regardless of the merit of electromagnetic therapy vs. magnetic therapy, they are closely related and do not warrant separate articles. johnpseudo 19:10, 7 October 2006 (UTC)
  • It would be nice to merge but currently I see some disputes with confussing certain POVs. On one hand their appears to be some strong skepticism against magnet therapy but on the other hand electromagnetic therapy is used by physiotherapy and some cancer treatment. I think it would be wise to keep them seperate for these reasons nevertheless suggestions to try and resolve this problem would be appreciated. On the other hand, (just off the top of my head), I think I remember someting saying that magnet therapy and electromagnetic therapy is about the same thing. But the quote went like this "Electromagnetic therapy, also known as electromagnetism, bioelectricity, magnetobiology, magnetic field therapy and magnetic healing, applies electromagnetic energy to the body to treat disease." Unfortunatelly I don't see any sourced relationship between both. Putting all this wiki rule stuff asside... and the possibility to confuse what appears to be two different methodes of delivering an electrogmatic field. I admit it would be nice to have something comprehensive yet non-conflicting that could encopass all of these. --CyclePat00:27, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
  • This is a terrible merge since it puts the more general article as a section in the less general article. There has been plenty of opposition on the talk page. Don't do it.ObsidianOrder 19:02, 21 October 2006 (UTC)
  • P.S. The merge proposal above says Magnetic therapy but that is just a redirect to Magnet therapy. Also the merge I undid was to Magnet therapy. The two are not the same: "magnet" means just permanent magnets (typically worn close to the body for extended periods), "magnetic" would encompass any EM field, however produced, the main active component of which is magnetic. ObsidianOrder 20:55, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
    • I second that proposition makes sense. Plus we could put topography EMF scanning.--CyclePat 22:38, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As this dispute seems to have settled for the moment, I am deleting it fromWikipedia:Proposed_mergers. --Leviel 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

unmerge electromagnetic therapy

I unmerged "electromagnetic therapy". There has been significant opposition to the merge. The merge is ridiculous on the face of it, since magnet therapy is a particular kind of electromagnetic therapy and if anything is merged it should be the other way around. More appropriately there should be a section on "magnet therapy" in "electromagnetic therapy" which links to the main article here. Some kinds of electromagnetic therapy are mainstream (pacemakers, diathermy, ect), and others are beginning to be accepted (electircal stimulation for bone healing, low-level laser therapy). Magnet therapy (in the sense of wearing permanent magnets close to the body) is amongst the most controversial and least well supported by evidence kinds of electromagnetic therapy, and thus the merge represents the extreme POV that all kinds are equally controversial.ObsidianOrder 18:47, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

major rewrite

Some IP guy has rewritten the whole article, and removed the entire Criticism section. Inappropriate. Someone should look into if his contributions should be kept. His Business section in particular looks OK, doesn't it? Narssarssuaq 14:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted all of the additions. There are simply too many unsourced statements and too much editorializing. Some of it is potentially good stuff, but there was too much good and bad blended together to sort it out. I hope the person will discuss it here, since some could be used. If anyone wants to analyze it and add it back in a more NPOV manner with sourcing, the be my guest. --Fyslee 14:49, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

A possible fix?

Maybe we could rewrite this article so it is no longer bias. Put up both sides of the argument. I some one comes here to actually learn about magnet therapy I think there is not going to be any useful information. Other pseudo science topics have much more in depth descriptions and possible problems with the idea. This article seems to ignore the idea that it might work. I mean there are a lot of people putting lots of money into these products so there has to be something good to say. I thing this article fails to provide an objective idea of magnet therapy. To me it sounds like some one put the article to disprove it and no one stepped up with any defense.Hinesa200:19, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Maybe we need an expert tag. Narssarssuaq 23:24, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

yes I agree maybe someone that has tested, or used them in a study, someone besides a distributor of any magnetic healing products.Hinesa2 06:14, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

pseudoscience revised

Is the pseudoscience section revised in a non-NPOV now it is hard to see from a writer point of view if it is now corrected? Any criticism good or bad is more than welcomed. Any ideas on how to strengthen this section? Any week points that need to be addressed?Hinesa2 23:42, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I agree with everything you wrote, although it's a good effort. Health effects, even vague ones, from magnet therapy should be testable by the scientific method - you'll just have to use double-blind experiments. As far as I know, a pseudoscience is rather a science that pretends to be scientific, i.e. uses terms from science, although it applies them in a totally non-scientific manner. Also, when no scientific evidence or possible scientific mechanism supports it. I think magnet therapy is close to that. Narssarssuaq 00:54, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

How do you test feelings? I am not sure but I think some magnets imply that they can influence an overall sence of well-being(hear say from distributors nothing solid or tested).Hinesa2 06:18, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

You test feelings by asking people how they feel, and comparing their answers to people who were giving placebo. See double blind. It should be possible to create such a test... I think.Narssarssuaq 04:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Please feel free to revise remove or change anything no offense will be taking writing is not one of my strong suits. I would just like to add to the collective knowledge. I will try to revise, understanding the points you have put forward. if anyone else has a pseudoscience definition that you would like to add it would be great. Thank you for your ideas and changes.Hinesa2 06:12, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

And thanks for your cordial attitude :) Narssarssuaq 04:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Power of the magnetic Field

unwanted effects: From examination of workers in work medicine we know (working in metallurgica with inductive heating) that high power magnetic field between 100 micro Tesla and 3000 micro Tesla (earth magnetic field is approx. 60 micro Tesla) might cause breake of chromosomes of lymphocytes in vivo. Such an in vitro effect is also known. Wanted effect of electromagnetic fields: Also it is known that electromagnetic fields - in vitro - can cause disruption of covalent polar bindings between sulfur of amino acids and heavy metals such as lead. What this means for therapy I dont know. Kaltenbrunner

Dog collars?

What about magnetic dog collars? I've heard friends talk about these, maybe they can add an extra dimention to the article. —The preceding unsignedcomment was added by Reverieuk (talk •contribs) 14:50, 11 March 2007 (UTC).

Moved here from sub-page of talk page

I just made my first edit under "criticism" and am wondering if someone could tell me why one paragraph was highlighted yellow and not entered with the other two? Any help would be appreciated. Thank you, John Peru 04:11, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Cannot assume that all magnets have the same physiologic effect

Before magnetic therapy can be discussed with any scientific credibility, the differences in static magnets including Gauss strength and polarity such as positive, negative, unipolar, bipolar and quadrapolar must be considered. A significant body of published research(1) on static magnets exists which validates different neural tissue responses when exposed to a range of magnetic fields. This evidence makes nonsense of blanket statements such as static magnets have little or no therapeutic properties.

The key difference is the varying physiologic effect different magnetic arrays have on nerve tissue. Over a decade of cell research was undertaken by neurologists at Vanderbilt Medical University and the results consistently showed that the quadrapolar magnetic array elicited a far greater effect at blocking the firing of action potentials in neuronal tissue than alternative arrays.

For a detailed description of the evidence and references to the research see the following website… http://www.neuromagnetics.com/site/science/science.php

There is a paucity of quality RCT research(2)on the therapeutic properties of magnets, but what is available is significant and does warrant further investigation.

(1)McLean, MJ; Holcomb, RR; Wamil, AW; Pickett, JD and Cavopol, AV: Blockade of Sensory Neuron Action Potentials by a Static Magnetic Field in the 10 mT Range. Bioelectromagnetics 16:20-32, 1995.

Cavopol, AV; Wamil, AE; Holcomb, RR and McLean, MJ: Measurement and analysis of static magnetic fields which block action potentials in cultured neurons. Bioelectromagnetics 16:197-206, 1995.

McLean, MJ; Holcomb RR; Wamil AW and Pickett, JD: Effects of steady magnetic fields on action potentials and sodium currents of sensory neurons in vitro. Environmental Medicine, 8:36-45, 1991

Holcomb, RR; Parker, RA and Harrison, MS: Biomagnetics in the treatment of human pain- Past, Present, Future. Environmental Medicine, 8:24-30, 1991

www.neuromagnetics.com

(2)Segal NA, Toda Y, Huston J, Saeki Y, Shimizu M, Fuchs H, Shimaoka Y, Holcomb R, McLean MJ. Two configurations of static magnetic fields for treating rheumatoid arthritis of the knee: a double-blind clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001 Oct;82(10):1453-60.

Holcomb RR, Worthington WB, McCullough BA, McLean MJ: Static magnetic field therapy for pain in the abdomen and genitals. Pediatr Neurol. 2000 Sep;23(3):261-4.

Segal NA, Houston J, Fuchs H, Holcomb RR, McLean MJ: Efficacy of a static magnetic device against knee pain associated with inflammatory arthritis. Vanderbilt University Medical School, 2001.

McLean, MJ; Holcomb, RR; Torgerson, JE and McCullough, B: Treatment of wrist pain in the work place with a static magnetic device: interim report of a clinical trial. Second World Congress for Electricity and Magnetism in Biology and Medicine, Bologna, Italy, June 8-13, 1997.

Holcomb, RR: Treatment of mechanical low back pain with arrays of permanent magnets: a controlled study. 20th Annual Meeting of the Bioelectromagnetics Society, St. Pete Beach, FL, June 7-13, 1998.

Jamesfhermans 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

This looks well-referenced, so do add this information to the article!Narssarssuaq 07:12, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Actually, this makes no sense at all (unless you've found the monopole Stanford lost, in which case it would violate WP:NOR), and the sources are not RS per WP:RS or AS per WP:ARB/PS.--Philosophus ^T 00:12, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

I may have missed it, but where is the source that reports the use of a monopole? It seems to me that WP:RS is the proverbial sand in which one may bury one's head. Reliability is a subjective measure at best. I see at least one source listed above that can be regarded as "reliable." --The Extremist [User, Talk] 08:13, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Partial rewrite

OK let's stop fighting and attempt to have an informative article. First, "Magnet therapy" exists and is notable, at least by the sales figures it generates. Hence this topic deserves a good article. Second, Wikipedia readers are not stupid children that need to be told "magnet therapy bad! boo!! pseudoscience". Let's stick to the facts and the published material. No need to put every sentence into conditional form.

Also, there are 1e9 charlatans selling magnet products, and 1e12 idiots who couldn't tell a placebo from a donut who buy them. But that doesn't mean that the readers deserve a "debunking school" drivel article.

So I'm toning down and trying to present the arguments rationally.

• Magnet therapy, even if it does not work, is not pseudoscience like psychanalysis or new age "aura" crap: it is a perfectly testable therapy that could easily fit, if it works, within the bounds of mainstream physics.
• For comparison, animal magnetism and voodoo could be described as pseudoscience (if their proponents asserted they were somehow scientific).
• The effect of magnetic fields, static or not, on biological systems is a perfectly respectable and serious field of study. Magnetism is a fundamental part of physics. Biological systems are composed of physical units. Why wouldn't the two interact? They do. The question is: does that lead to large-scale effects?
• Lack of an explanation does not imply absence of effect. Superconductivity always existed and the effect didn't need an explanation to be recognized.
• The existence of scams gravitating around a given hypothesis does not make that hypothesis any less or more true, or less worthy of scientific investigation.

--Congruence (talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Reasons for removal, please?

A 2007 study suggested that application of 10 or 70, but not 400 mT, static magnetic fields reduced histamine-induced edema formation in rats."Study". Acute Exposure to a Moderate Strength Magnetic Field Reduces Edema Formation in Rats. American Journal of Physiology. 2007-11-01. Retrieved 2008-02-29. {{cite web}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)

Redheylin (talk) 18:19, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Placebo in Harlow et al.

I removed this "Non-specific (placebo) effects may have accounted for some or all of the perceived benefits."

This article is negative enough already without adding a negative comment after the one study that actually cites results. The girl walking down the street "may have" a penis but we don't know. No need for speculation.

I reworded and replaced the note - it is not random speculation, but is a cited comment by the study authors on the statistical power and interpretability of the study. - Eldereft (cont.) 19:17, 4 December 2008 (UTC)

Magnet Therapy Gets Boost from Real Study

Magnet Therapy Gets Boost from Real StudyBy Christopher Wanjek, LiveScience Bad Medicine Columnist

posted: 08 January 2008 06:28 am ET Magnetic therapy, long derailed as pseudoscience, has just gotten a boost from a biomedical study showing how magnets can reduce swelling.

The study will likely impress manufacturers of magnetic devices, many of whom never dreamed these things could actually work and have been selling them merely to cash in on this $5-billion-a-year industry. But skeptics will have a tough time brushing this one off.

In a tightly controlled study—a rarity in the world of alternative medicine—Thomas Skalak of the University of Virginia found that static magnets reduced swelling by up to 50 percent in the tiny hind paws of rats. Skalak published his results in the November issue of the American Journal of Physiology.

Push and pull

Therapeutic magnets have a demonstrated ability to pull wads of cash from your wallet. Some magnetic back braces sell for upwards of $100. The benefits associated with magnets range, according to proponents, from curing cancer to chasing away your mother-in-law, but mostly magnets are used to treat pain from muscle aches and arthritis.

Called static because they emit a steady force, similar to a refrigerator magnet, therapeutic magnets are very popular among athletes. Former Miami Dolphins quarterback Dan Marino claims that magnets healed his fractured ankle later in his career. It's not clear, however, which losing season he was referring to.

Yet little scientific evidence exists demonstrating that static magnets heal, according to the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM), which funds studies of questionable therapies to see if there's anything behind the often outrageous claims.

First strong study

Performing high-quality magnet studies has been difficult, mainly because patients easily can test whether they are wearing a real magnet or a placebo simply by seeing if a paperclip sticks to it. Also, pain is subjective, so studies measuring pain reduction can be biased. As a result, according to NCCAM, the few magnet studies showing positive health effects have had major flaws.

Skalak, funded by NCCAM, took the novel approach of working with rats to determine changes in body function as a result of wearing static magnets or sham magnets. Smart as they might be, the rats did not seem to know the difference. He induced different kinds of swelling and noted that an external magnet with a strength of 700 gauss, 10 times stronger than a refrigerator magnet, reduced the type of swelling associated with bee stings or sprains.

The swelling reduction was strongest when the magnet was applied immediately. Skalak envisions sports trainers using magnetic wraps instead of ice packs.

How it works?

Skalak and his colleague, Cassandra Morris, also at the University of Virginia, can't explain how therapeutic magnets work. In fact, no one can.

One theory, often cited by advocates, is that magnets attract the iron in blood and increase blood flow. But blood iron is locked up in hemoglobin molecules, which are slightly repelled by magnets. Other theories are just wacky, such as the reasoning that city dwellers are magnetically deprived because pavements block the earth's natural magnetic field.

It's a good thing blood isn't affected much by magnets, because if blood were greatly affected, then when inside an MRI device, which employs alternating magnetic fields 100 times stronger than a therapeutic magnet, you would blow up.

One plausible theory, Skalak said, is that the magnetic field might alter calcium channels in muscle cells, which could cause arteries to dilate.

What it doesn't mean

Skalak stopped short of endorsing any commercial product, because what he found was based on a specific magnetic field strength for a specific swelling at a specific distance below the skin. In the commercial world, there is no established "dose" of magnetic fields.

Commercial therapeutic magnets come in a range of strengths, many no stronger than a refrigerator magnet. You can test the strength of one: Place a sock over a magnetic shoe insert and you'll see that it no longer holds a paperclip. That magnetic field has to penetrate both sock and skin to have an effect. Wrapping a refrigerator magnet in an ace bandage will get you just as far at a fraction of the price.

Magnetic field strengths drop sharply with distance, inversely proportional with the cube of the distance. So it is unclear if a magnetic pad can reach as deep as the spine.

Skalak also said that his study in no way supports copper or titanium bracelets or healing crystals. But it is only a matter of time before shysters latch on the Skalak's work as proof of the efficacy of their zany health products.

Top 10 Bad Things That Are Good For You The Most Popular Myths in Science Take the Body Quiz Christopher Wanjek is the author of the books “Bad Medicine” and “Food At Work.” Got a question about Bad Medicine? Email Wanjek. If it’s really bad, he just might answer it in a future column. Bad Medicine appears each Tuesday on LiveScience. —Preceding unsigned comment added by12.107.178.10 (talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2