It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: GetHyped
"Using careful observation?"
really?
why don't they than carefully observer why magnets work on a lot of people...they should start there.
Abstract
BACKGROUND:
Static magnets are marketed with claims of effectiveness for reducing pain, although evidence of scientific principles or biological mechanisms to support such claims is limited. We performed a systematic review and meta-analysis to assess the clinical evidence from randomized trials of static magnets for treating pain.
METHODS:
Systematic literature searches were conducted from inception to March 2007 for the following data sources: MEDLINE, EMBASE, AMED (Allied and Complementary Medicine Database), CINAHL, Scopus, the Cochrane Library and the UK National Research Register. All randomized clinical trials of static magnets for treating pain from any cause were considered. Trials were included only if they involved a placebo control or a weak magnet as the control, with pain as an outcome measure. The mean change in pain, as measured on a 100-mm visual analogue scale, was defined as the primary outcome and was used to assess the difference between static magnets and placebo.
RESULTS:
Twenty-nine potentially relevant trials were identified. Nine randomized placebo-controlled trials assessing pain with a visual analogue scale were included in the main meta-analysis; analysis of these trials suggested no significant difference in pain reduction (weighted mean difference [on a 100-mm visual analogue scale] 2.1 mm, 95% confidence interval -1.8 to 5.9 mm, p = 0.29). This result was corroborated by sensitivity analyses excluding trials of acute effects and conditions other than musculoskeletal conditions. Analysis of trials that assessed pain with different scales suggested significant heterogeneity among the trials, which means that pooling these data is unreliable.
INTERPRETATION:
The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
Who knows? But it does, so, while I would love to know the how and why myself, in the end, it doesn't really matter how it works, what matters most - to those of us who want to reap the benefits of such a cheap and effective therapy - is the fact that it does...
How does gravity work? How does a single cell, under certain conditions, grow into a fully developed human baby? I know there are some here who can (probably) describe the mechanics of both really well - but can you explain the fundamental how or why? No (if you are honest).
I would also ask - please show the studies proving that radiation and chemotherapy work to 'cure' cancer. Oh, right - they don't exist.
originally posted by: Dr X
Tesla's own research into EM radiation suggested that "radiant energy", longitudinal light waves could heal or kill, depending on the frequency.
Why do people get leukaemia near high power lines?
That has not been explained yet.
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Bedlam
first please read the article I linked.
People with NO science live up to 140 years and have babies at 60. How many people in modern society can say that...well for them it is normal and without ANY science or modern medicine!
if you can show me magnetic field I will show you subtle energy...using just our senses and nothing else.
With this, I am just pointing to a reality outside our awareness of five senses. The way our body and senses works seems so normal that we accept it as the truth and all there is...well that is normal.
Using careful observation? really?
why don't they than carefully observer why magnets work on a lot of people...they should start there.
They already have and it's a load of bunk
INTERPRETATION:
The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment. For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.
Stop blaming the scientific method for not validating your magical beliefs.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
originally posted by: Bedlam
Bedlam, you've made it clear you think the use of magnets is woo-woo, we get it, please go bother someone else's thread.
I'm sorry - when did you ascend to super mod status? I missed the announcement.
My thread, and I don't appreciate hijackers.
I have no problem with discussion, I just dislike when someone tries to pass off condescending dis-respectful rants as 'discussion'.
Objection: assumes facts not in evidence.
Aka, positing a strawman.
...and I am 100% positive that it was the magnets that did it, whether you like it or not.
I'm sorry that the mere idea that there may be something out there that you don't understand offends you so, maybe you should get some help with that.
Ok, so you 'pointed it out' - with nothing of substance to back it up I might add.
But... ok, I'll bite...
Although not a formal 'study', a 2 minute google search reveals this lesson transcript detailing the differences between the two polarities.
Then on the same results page I found this actual study (apologies if it doesn't meet your obviously high standards) showing - gasp! - efficacy of static magnetic fields on reducing inflammation and edema in rats.
And here is a page with lots of apparently knowledgeable people from all over the world discussing the use of magnets for speeding the healing of bones - including even spinal cord injuries - and - gasp! - increasing blood flow/circulation, etc...
You really should rethink your religious affiliations (science worshiper), at least a little.
One of the things that will likely be - if it happens - the downfall of man is our arrogance.
How many times has science had to correct itself? How many times will it have to do so in the future before either we off ourselves, or lose our arrogance, and admit that we don't know everything, and what we do know is likely to be wrong, or at the very least, incomplete.
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: GetHyped
okey...
yet, some people are getting magically better.
I want to know, I am a health professional interested in all types of cures,I never dismiss anything just like that, but I need real evidence.
How does gravity work? How does a single cell, under certain conditions, grow into a fully developed human baby? I know there are some here who can (probably) describe the mechanics of both really well - but can you explain the fundamental how or why? No (if you are honest).
I can explain how a cell becomes a little person,
and I can also explain the pathophysiology of the most common diseases and the pharmacology of the most common drugs. To me the explanation is really important, it may not be for the layperson, but to me it is.
The form of quackery I despise the most is the promotion of cures that cannot be explained, because they can endanger lives.
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Bedlam
and then there is Kirlian photography, which I already mentioned...
than there are for instance shaolin monks, which can do many amazing things with there bodies...they use this energy also.
originally posted by: tanstaafl
Really? I think more than likely you are able to explain the process - ie, 'the cell divides...' - but cannot explain how and why the cell divides in the first place. If you can do that, I'm all ears.
Surely you are mis-speaking? Please tell me you didn't just say that the fact that something cannot be explained means it can endanger lives?
originally posted by: anton74
I had one episode that lasted over a month. On my way to a party I slipped and fell on some ice covered stairs. One stair hit me right where the bulging disk is. When I stood up and the pain was gone, do you think falling on the stairs cured me?
originally posted by: UniFinity
a reply to: Bedlam
about Krillin, that is your opinion and not a fact.
...due to being materialistic and driven by people who don't like to think out of the box due to wrong views and principles learned in university.
originally posted by: Bedlam
You created it, but you don't own it. Nor are you the gatekeeper for discussion about the subject. And I'm not hijacking it. Just not agreeing with you.
I said:
I have no problem with discussion, I just dislike when someone tries to pass off condescending dis-respectful rants as 'discussion'.
You responded:
i.e. 'agree with me or I'll become cross'
"You are wrong, friend. The relief was as close to 'instantaneous' as can be for something like this - 24 hours from terminal agony to pain free "
I neither like nor dislike. To me, part of the interest in the story is why an obviously rational person would ignore the many many other things that were apparently going on
to focus on one thing in that congeries that 'had to be it'.
Despite there being no proof at all that magnets do anything in the way of healing, and a lot of proof that they don't.
You're the one claiming that magnets have deadly poles. I asked for any citations to that.
Not that they don't have two polarities, there's no such thing as 'north pole energy' vs 'south pole energy'. A magnetic field is not energy.
I said:
And here is a page with lots of apparently knowledgeable people from all over the world discussing the use of magnets for speeding the healing of bones - including even spinal cord injuries - and - gasp! - increasing blood flow/circulation, etc...
you said:
THAT is talking about something else altogether. Time varying magnetic fields induce electrical currents. The mechanism for healing bone (and to some extent, soft tissue damage) is controlled by small electrical currents generated at bone damage sites by piezoelectric generation in the bone. In effect, the bone damage sort of calls out for osteoblasts to migrate into the area and lay down bone to stop the current being generated. rTMS simulates this by inducing currents in the area with a time-varying field. This is very different from a static magnetic field.
I said:
How many times has science had to correct itself?
You said:
Ah, there we go. I thought that would pop in eventually. The very nature of science is to correct itself. That's not its weakness, it is the strength of the technique.
And in this case, a lot of studies designed to remove false observation and personal bias say it doesn't do anything.
Which also sort of agrees with what we understand about how static magnetic fields affect things.
Separating out confirmation bias and false association is a really necessary step
originally posted by: tanstaaflI'll ask you a question: how many prescription medications that had plenty of 'gold standard' support (randomized double-blind placebo controlled studies) 'proving' efficacy have been pulled from the market with large class action lawsuits leading to huge settlements?
originally posted by: surfer_soulJust because you weren't expecting any results from the magnets doesn't mean the Placebo effect couldn't have kicked in though,