My spine specialist said the MRI confirmed the pain was referred from my right SIJ and that hopefully in a few years it would resolve, but in the mean time I had little pain relief. Unfortunately the QF28-6 magnets were not providing any relief even though I persisted for four weeks and visited a local physiotherapist to assist with the correct placement.

I discussed this with James at Neuromagnetics Australia and he suggested it might be worth trialling the OF50-3 which being 5cm round was large enough to capture the SIJ joint. As soon as I put it on, I could feel the difference and was able to move more freely.
When I take the magnet off for awhile, I get a real painful aching in the SIJ area. When I put it back on, my skin tingles at first, then it seems to dull the aching. It doesn’t completely take away the pain but it stops aching in the area, which helps me.
Hopefully my chronic pain will correct itself over time, but for now I am thankful that I can manage my pain to at least make it bearable with a simple therapy with no side effects.

Sharyn K
Bundaberg, QLD

This experience of Sharyn was confirmed with physiotherapist, Imogen Cusack’s clinical experience with the OF50-3. This provides further evidence that if the right dose of field gets to the target tissue, then significant clinical outcomes are even more reliable.

The fact is, there are 6 variables when it comes to the application of static magnet devices. If the offending target tissue (e.g. sensitized C-fibre nerves in spine) is enveloped by an optimized field by correctly applying the most appropriate device, then remarkable outcomes for pain sufferers are possible. Just like in the case of John with a 27 year history of chronic back pain.

After thousands of patients treated and numerous clinical trials and animal studies, there is now enough evidence to recommend protocols for effective Q magnet placement.

An example of the “window of effectiveness” can be seen with the introduction of the OF50-3. This is the first time a static magnet of this strength and size has been developed that can capture such a large area of tissue. See the feedback from this physiotherapist for the clinical outcomes for Q magnet therapy using this device.

Before the development of the OF50-3, being 50mm (2”) in diameter, results with SIJ pain and disc pain for two adjacent spinal levels such as L4/5 and L5/S1 were unreliable. The SIJ joint and two adjacent discs were too large an area for the QF28-6, being 28mm (1”) in diameter to capture.

By improving the design and providing a variety of models, the outcomes are continually improving and people’s lives being changed one pain at a time.

REFERENCES:
Laszlo et al. (2007) Optimization of static magnetic field parameters improves analgesic effect in mice. Bioelectromagnetics 2007 Dec;28(8):615-27. PMID: 17654477; doi.

Morris et al. (2008) Acute Exposure to a Moderate Strength Static Magnetic Field Reduces Edema Formation In Rats. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol: 2008 Jan;294(1):H50-7. PMID: 17982018; doi.

The SNS can play a major role in sustaining chronic pain. Particularly in the case of Complex Regional Pain Syndrome (CPRS), formerly known as Reflex Sympathetic Dystrophy (RSD), where you also see symptoms such as burning pain and physical changes in skin colour, texture and hair and nail growth.

The nerves of the SNS originate from the thoracolumbar region of the spinal cord, to be precise from T1 to L2. That is, the thoracic spine (mid back where the ribs attach to the spine) and the lumbar spine (lower back), see image below.

Neuromagnetics is based on the premise that gradient modulated static magnetic fields can be optimised for therapeutic effects on pain modulation. We have explained the process of central sensitization and how Q magnets are thought to dampen down the bodies pain hypersensitivity.

Q Magnet Placement for sympathetic Nervous System:

The most important placements for the SNS are C7/T1 and T4/5.

C7/T1 is between the first two bumps at the base of the neck and T4/5 is four levels below. You can feel each spinal level as you gently press along the spine. While the SNS levels are from T1 to L2, C7 is also important because this is the location of the stellate ganglion.

The following are the important levels for Q magnet placement for the Sympathetic Nervous System. Placement of the devices should be between the two spinous processes over the interspinous space (or disc):

C7/T1

T2/3

T4/5

T6/7

T8/9

T10/11

T12/L1

L2/3

Spinal levels of spine; side and back view

CASE STUDY:
See a two year post whiplash injury case study here with resulting sympathetic disorder and changes in heat and cold receptors, circulation changes, hairless and a clawing affect in the hand. Presented at the 2001, Sports Medicine Australia conference.

Three Quadrapolar magnets were placed centrally over C3/4, C7/T1 and T4/5 interspinous space. Within 24 hours pain had significantly reduced as too had the sympathetic overload such that the hot/cold waves ceased, the colour came back into the hand and there was less clawing. The photos say it all.

Before and after effects of Q magnet therapy on sympathetic nervous system after 2 months

Showing where Q magnets were placed over sympathetic nervous system origins

This was a double blind randomised controlled trial that looked at three types of dental pain – temperomandibular joint (TMJ), mouth ulcer (aphtha) and inflammation of the tooth socket (alveolitis).

The TMJ pain cohort had 16 in the active magnet group and 13 in the placebo. Pain measures using the Visual Analogue Scale (VAS) were taken immediately before and after the application of the magnetic devices and 5 minutes later immediately before and after removal with averages taken for pre and post intervention.

For the TMJ group wearing the active magnetic device, the VAS pain scores reduced from around 4 to 2, while the placebo group reduced from 4 to 3.5 which was statistically significant (p = 0.0003).

Reduction of pain sensation between active and sham group for magnetic therapy

The anecdotal evidence from thousands of patients treated with Q magnets, is the pain relieving effects become much less reliable where there is an infection or fever. This could be due to the fact that there are different pain mechanisms involved where there is a strong immune response, which maybe why the static magnetic field intervention had less of an effect on the aphtha and alveolitis groups.

See more on inhomogeneous static magnetic fields here and more research on magnetic therapy here.

REFERENCE:
Laszlo, J., et al. (2012) “Effect of local exposure to inhomogeneous static magnetic field on stomatological pain sensation – a double-blind, randomized, placebo-controlled study.” Int J Radiat Biol. 2012 Feb 28
PMID: 22288770; doi.

In that time I have used them for a range of soft tissue injuries and I have particularly found them useful for reducing spasm, swelling and pain modulation.

While there is mixed evidence supporting the use of magnetic therapy, research on devices such as Q magnets do show promise which is encouraging. Anecdotally we have been happy with the clinical results achieved.

I would highly recommend Q magnets to any athlete seeking to push the boundaries to get the most out of their bodies and recover faster from injury.”

Ed Fitzgerald
Principal Physiotherapist
Queensland Sports Medicine Centre

11 out of the 13 randomised controlled trials relevant to multipolar magnets listed on our website, show positive effects over placebo. Some of the studies such as Vallbona, Costantino, Man and Laszlo showed significant pain relieving and fracture healing effects.

The two studies that showed no effect were Collacott and Cepeda.
Investigating low back pain was Collacott, who used a weak flexible rubber magnet with an effective penetration of around 10mm. This study was unlikely to show a positive effect because it was the wrong type of magnet. It requires a magnet such as the QF28-6 or OF50-3 to penetrate the 30-40mm required to capture the nerve roots and dorsal horn of the spine to be effective for low back pain.

As for Cepeda, they used a high quality magnet to investigate post operative pain, but placed the devices around the incision. How they could expect a positive result when the field from these magnets did not envelope the target tissue (being the wound), is almost beyond belief.

It is misleading to conclude from these two and other studies, as some observers do that magnetic therapy is not effective. A more scientific conclusion is that the type of magnet used for this condition is not effective. REF

The computer rated generated field map of a quadrapolar magnet showing the steep field gradients.

Neuromagnetics is based on the premise that static magnetic fields can be optimised for therapeutic effects and there are ample cell studies, animal studies, case studies and clinical trials to support this.

There appears to be a so called “window of effectiveness” for static magnetic devices to produce significant therapeutic benefits. This is where more research needs to be undertaken. We can be thankful that the above two studies help us understand that when the methods operate outside the “window”, then successful clinical outcomes are unlikely.

Just like context-dependant drugs, Q magnets appear to work on C-fibre nerves in a way that only effects “pathological” pain transmission and not “normal” pain transmission and without the side-effects.

See how Q magnets effect central sensitization for more information.

Neuro-magnetics
Neuro for the nervous system, being the target of the therapeutic agent, an optimised inhomogeneous magnetic field for modulating pain relief.

Neuromagnetics is recommended for chronic pain relief and for faster injury recovery. Click on order now, to order your set today.

Since 2008 I have been using Q magnets as an adjunct in therapy and have seen some remarkable outcomes with patients.

OF50-3 Octapolar magnet; 50mm x 3mm

Recently I trialled the newest model, the OF50-3 and have found it to be excellent for treating the following conditions…
• Bilateral, postero-lateral disc herniation.
• Trochanteric bursitis.
• SIJ pain

I find they’re great with widespread pain and spasm of a deep, constant, unremitting nature; presentations that are usually slow to respond.

Its motivating and encouraging for patients to see significant changes in just one session.

Cheers, Imogen Cusack
Physiotherapist and Acupuncturist

Oxley, Brisbane.  ph. 0410 584 229

Nicole presented on 13^th April 2012, one day after a Grade III medial head gastroc tear while playing squash. Treatment consisted of Rest, Ice, Compression, Elevation, laser therapy, a heel raise and non weight bearing crutches.

The following day (14^th April), I applied two QF20-5 Q magnets with sports tape, one directly over the tear and another over the acupuncture point UB57.

Two days later on 16^th April, we took the following photos showing a clear effect directly under where the magnets were placed.

Calf bruise showing effects of Q magnets. Skin markings are from compression bandage.

Calf bruise showing 2 days post Q magnet placement close up.

On the 20^th April, I added a QF28-3 device over the thickened painful area on the medial head.

On the 24^th April (12 days after the original injury) Nicole was fully weight bearing, the skin was clear of bruising and there was no pain on palpation where the magnets had been placed. She was able to begin cycling, massage and gentle stretches.

OBSERVATIONS:
Nicole recovered from this injury significantly better than what I would normally expect. There was reduced pain and swelling during the recovery with a much earlier return to activity than expected.

It amazed me that after a few days of wearing the Q magnets, it was obvious the haeamatoma did not form, nor was there thickening or swelling and it was not painful to palpate.

John Havill
Physiotherapist with 30 years experience.

How could this treatment have been improved?
For best results, the devices should have been applied immediately after the injury, preferably in combination with RICE. Unbelievably the patient went straight to the local hospital after the injury and was advised to use massage and stretches which fortunately she ignored and then came to a private practice the next day.

In addition, ideally a Q magnet with a larger surface area could have been used to capture more injured tissue. The QF28-3 or even OF50-3 since a therapeutic field only penetrates directly under the device, which can be seen from the photos and with palpation.

We recently introduced the Q Bonus Package for the Active Athlete. This pack provides a range of devices for the active athlete so they can immediately apply the most appropriate device for the injury as an adjunct to self-management to RICE. Since they have no side effects and last for decades, Q magnets are a great investment for any active athlete.

See more on Q magnets for soft tissue injuries here.

If you ever wanted an example of why there is so much confusion around magnetic therapy, then look no further than this ABC News story.

The article is discussing new research from the University of Virginia under the title “Can magnets cure pain?”. Problem is, the study has nothing to do with pain, it’s all about studying the effects of static magnetic fields on blood flow.

In fact, the hypothesis the researchers were testing (and consequently confirmed) as stated in the published study was “that acute application of static magnetic field to an inflammatory injury may limit the formation of edema and therefore accelerate healing.”

The news article states…
“New research at the University of Virginia shows that there is at least some truth to the oft-cited claim that magnets can increase the flow of blood, thus providing more oxygen and nutrients to injured tissue. Researchers have shown that a mild magnetic field can cause the smallest blood vessels in the body to dilate or constrict, thus increasing the blood flow and suppressing inflammation, a critical factor in the healing process.”

The author can’t seem to get his head around the results of the study…That immediate exposure of a static magnetic field caused the blood vessels to constrict which in turn reduced blood flow, leading to a reduction in inflammation.

See the results of static magnetic fields on soft tissue injuries here.

The paragraph in the article even confuses the two opposing processes of increasing blood supply and reducing inflammation.

Any wonder there is a lot of confusion out there when it comes to magnetic therapy!

The specificity around magnetic therapy is critical and there are many variables. When a static magnetic field is optimised for a therapeutic effect and an appropriate device is used so that a sufficient “dose” of field envelopes the target tissue, then the healing and pain relieving effects can be dramatic.

From our perspective, the evidence for the therapeutic effect of quadrapolar and other multipolar magnets stems from their unique inhomogeneous magnetic field’s effect on the nervous system and in particular on unmyelinated C-fibres and not increasing blood flow. See how Q magnets work for more information.

We have always been dubious about claims of increased blood flow and have to work hard at not repeating it ourselves. So what is the evidence?

CAN MAGNETIC FIELDS INCREASE BLOOD FLOW?
Looking at the evidence on the effects of static magnetic fields on blood flow, it appears that they produce microcirculatory homeostasis.

That is, where there is trauma, it actually has a vasoconstrictive effect, leading to a reduction in blood flow and inflammation.

In healthy individuals there appears to be no effect on blood flow from static magnetic fields.

At a macro level, when you look at the effects of Q magnets on haematomas there is a definite effect which looks more like restricting blood flow.

In addition, a common application for Q magnets is on the cheek directly over the extraction point after wisdom tooth removal. Just like in the case of Elizabeth, almost every case we have seen, there is very little pain or swelling. This would support the idea of microcirculatory homeostasis.

The hypothesis “that acute application of SMF to an inflammatory injury may limit the formation of edema and therefore accelerate healing”, was confirmed in the studies by Morris et al., see below in animal studies 5 & 6. .

RESEARCH STUDIES:
1. Martel et al. (2002) Comparison of static and placebo magnets on resting forearm blood flow in young, healthy men. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2002 Oct;32(10):518-24. PMID: 12403203

This study had 20 healthy men wear 500 Gauss BIOflex static magnets and then a placebo for 30 minutes on 2 separate occasions. The data suggested that static magnets do not result in significant alterations in resting blood flow.

2. Mayrovitz et al. (2004) Effects of a static magnetic field of either polarity on skin microcirculation. Microvasc Res. 2005 Jan;69(1-2):24-7. PMID: 15797257

This study exposed the fingers of 12 healthy volunteers to the North and South pole of a 4,028 G (0.4 Tesla) molybdenum magnet and then a placebo for 15 minutes each. Measuring skin blood perfusion with a laser-doppler, they found a statistically significant reduction in skin blood perfusion with the active magnet, but no difference between the North and South pole.

Since this was in contrast to two previous studies by the same authors using ceramic magnets, it was postulated the sevenfold greater field intensity may have accounted for the significant result.

ANIMAL MODELS:
1. Xu et al. (1998) Subchronic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation  in rabbits. In Vivo. 1998 Jul-Aug;12(4):383-9. PMID: 9706489

2. Okano et al. (1999) Biphasic effects of static magnetic fields on cutaneous microcirculation in rabbits. Bioelectromagnetics. 1999;20(3):161-71. PMID: 10194558

3. Gimtrov et al. (2002) Effect of 0.25 T static magnetic field on microcirculation in rabbits. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002 Apr;23(3):224-9. PMID: 11891752

These three studies demonstrate a biphasic response from blood flow to static magnetic fields. That is, magnetic fields appear to enhance vasodilation if vessels are relatively vasoconstricted and enhance vasoconstriction in vessels that are relatively vasodilated.

The authors proposed that prolonged exposure to an inhomogeneous static magnetic field probably modifies the macro and microcirculatory homeostasis through effects on smooth muscle on the vascular wall and that vascular tone modulation plays an important role in the cardiovascular effects on both the micro and macrocirculatory level.

4. Steyn et al. (2000) Effect of a static magnetic field on blood flow to the metacarpus in horses. J Am Vet Med Assoc. 2000 Sep 15;217(6):874-7. PMID: 10997160

The results of this study suggested that in horses, the static magnetic field associated with application of magnetic wraps for 48 hours did not increase blood flow to the portion of the metacarpus underneath the wrap. However, the strength of the magnets used at 7mm from the surface were no greater than the earth’s residual field. Considering the magnetic wraps did not exactly fit the surface of the limb that was covered by hair there was little chance the field was going to penetrate to envelope underlying blood vessels. You would wonder why they even bothered?

5. Morris et al. (2008) Acute Exposure to a Moderate Strength Static Magnetic Field Reduces Edema Formation In Rats. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol: 2008 Jan;294(1):H50-7. PMID: 17982018

This study claims to be the first to demonstrate that acute, localized static magnetic field exposure of moderate field strength (5-100mT), when applied immediately after an inflammatory injury, can result in significant reduction of edema formation. While the study doesn’t necessarily relate specifically to magnetic field gradients as they used a bipolar magnet, it does a very good job at measuring the magnetic field dosage and treatment parameters and the results were significant.

There is also a take home message for users of magnetic therapy, as soon as you have an injury – apply your devices. It was observed that the application of the field at the time of injury is important for affecting a significant physiological change.

6. Morris et al (2007). Chronic static magnetic field exposure alters microvessel enlargement resulting from surgical intervention. J Appl Physiol : 2007 Aug;103(2):629-36. PMID: 17478604

This research looked at the effects of a localised static magnetic field on edema after trauma in mice. The most significant reduction in arteriolar enlargement was manifested in the smallest vessels. As an example at day 7 sham treated vessels revealed venular enlargement of 91%, whereas magnet treated only 41%. This study blows away the common assumption that the healing of SMF’s in induced by increasing the blood flow to the injured area.

While we are at it, let’s take a quick look at this myth…

DOES A MAGNETIC FIELD ATTRACT BLOOD THROUGH THE IRON IN HAEMOGLOBIN?
There are some very weird and whacky claims when it comes to magnetic therapy. One of these is that a magnetic field attracts the iron in the blood.

Well, in fact oxygenated blood is diamagnetic which means that there will be a very tiny and almost negligible force repelling the blood. While deoxygenated blood is paramagnetic which means there will be a very tiny and almost negligible force attracting the blood.

In no form is the iron in haemoglobin ferromagnetic which is what would be required to have sufficient attractive forces to have an observable effect.