![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |
"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)
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)
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)
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? - Shanada 12:23, 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]
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)
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)
On the basis of the above discussion, I move that we retract the introductory remarks re 'is a pseudoscientific...' 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)
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.
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)
Your implication that "not proven" is somehow weaker than "disproven" shows a lack of understanding of the principles of scientific reasoning.
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)
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
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"
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.
... Whats this contributor doing advertising a specific company ....I thought you were not allowed to advertise on Wikipedia. -- Alanpat 15:18, 12 August 2006
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
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)
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.
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.
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)
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:
As this dispute seems to have settled for the moment, I am deleting it from Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers. -- Leviel 19:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
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)
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)
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. Hinesa2 00:19, 5 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)
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)
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)
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)
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
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)
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.
(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.
Jamesfhermans 22:45, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
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.
-- Congruence ( talk) 19:20, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
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)
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.
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 by 12.107.178.10 ( talk) 22:23, 24 March 2009 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 |