sceptics Posts

Are the Dinosaurs of Medicine the Innovators or the Sceptics?

In 2013, Steven Salzberg declared Battlefield Acupuncture the worst quackery for 2011. Follow this link for…his explanation.

Battlefield Acupuncture was pioneered by Dr Richard Niemtzow and is administered at the point of injury to provide comfort and pain relief to wounded soldiers. Salzberg uses pejoratives such as pseudoscience, nonsense and unscientific to label acupuncture, as well as other complimentary therapies such as magnetic field therapy.

 

Ridiculous arguments against magnetic field therapy deserve comical responses…

Some of the arguments put forward by skeptics against magnetic therapy are so hilarious, we’ve come up with a comical responses of our own…
(Drawing by our 15 year old daughter Melissa)

Not All Magnets Are Created Equal

Not All Magnets Are Created Equal

 

Response to RACQ magazine “The Road Ahead” article on magnetic therapy.

An article on magnetic therapy titled “Magnets’ pull yet to be proven” appeared in the Oct/Nov, 2014 issue of the popular RACQ magazine, The Road Ahead.

The RACQ is also a large insurer for motor vehicle injuries and ironically we have had a role in rehabilitating many of their policy holders for conditions such as whip lash using Q magnets. The author of the article is prominent Australian sceptic Loretta Marron OAM. Click on the image to enlarge it and read the entire article. Here is our response below…

RACQ-2014-Magnets-Pull-Yet-To-Be-Proven

Cochrane Review Supports the Use of Electromagnetic Field Therapy

DISCLAIMER:
The type of magnets evaluated in this review are electromagnetic fields (generated by electricity) and not static magnetic fields as Q magnets are defined.

 

The Cochrane Collaboration published an important review in October 2013 called “Electromagnetic fields for treating osteoarthritis (Review)”.

Three Things You Should Know When Someone Says – “There is no Evidence for the Use of Static Magnets”.

Two of the most recent scientific reviews on the effectiveness of static magnets have been by Pittler et al (2007) and Laakso et al (2009). See references below where both articles are free to access.

Pittler’s paper concluded from the 29 studies it reviewed… ”The evidence does not support the use of static magnets for pain relief, and therefore magnets cannot be recommended as an effective treatment.” Since this is often quoted by those seeking to discredit the therapeutic use of static magnets it deserves to be scrutinised.

The first anomaly is the summary of the study by Segal (2001). Compare Pittler’s summary… “No significant differences”, to Laakso’s summary of the exact same study… “Significantly less pain in treatment group compared to control group”. See tables below.

Warnings:

css.php
ERROR: 1 - [InvalidConfig]Invalid Configuration: for help setting up your API, please contact Support ( ext. 2)