In an article on livescience.com that was critical of magnetic therapy, the author made the comment that…
The deathblow to magnet therapy should have been the large, randomized, double-blinded study on pain published in 2007 in Anesthesia & Analgesia. Yet sales of therapeutic magnets remain legal.
We have made numerous mentions of this study by Cepeda, for example here and here. It’s clear that the Quadrapolar magnets used in the study were not even placed over the post-surgical wound, but around it. It’s unlikely that any of the magnetic field from the magnets applied to the patients would have enveloped the target tissue, that being the wound which is the site of the inflammation.
For example, when using Q Magnets to potentially provide comfort after a tooth extraction, it’s important to place the device over the site of the extraction, otherwise you might as well not use it at all. The effects on pain relief and reduced swelling can be remarkable as in the case of Elizabeth. Similarly with Q magnets for minor shin pain, a large enough device needs to be placed over the injured tissue.
To make blanket statements such as the results of one study should be the “deathblow to magnetic therapy” is totally misleading, bordering on the absurd.
A more scientific statement would be that the type of treatment protocol used by this specific type of magnet for this condition was not effective.
We have many different types of published studies listed on our website using static magnetic field therapy that provide promising evidence for the effectiveness of this type of treatment and it is beyond doubt worthy of further investigation.
We can understand why some sceptics might leap to conclusions such as the author from this livescience.com article, because unfortunately there is a lot of nonsense claimed by many people who sell magnets. Consequently the term magnetic therapy has its fair share of baggage, but let’s not discount the more credible therapies that exist within it such as Q Magnets.
After all, what could people possibly have against a therapy that is…
- Simple
- Drug free
- Non-addictive
- Non-invasive
- Painless
- Safe
- With an immediate and local effect
- Performed at home
- Paid for by the individual; and
- Based on scientific evidence
And by a listed medical device that…
- Requires little expertise
- Is relatively inexpensive
- Has no moving parts
- Requires little care or maintenance
- Lasts for decades
- Consumes no energy; and
- When not in use, can be used to keep notices stuck to the fridge!
Why would anyone not seek to support the development of such a therapy?
