Magnetherapy What Do you Think?

For thousands of years Chinese, Egyptians, Chaldeans, Arabs, Greeks, Romans and Indians have used magnets to heal. According to legend, about 2500 years ago, a shepherd named Magnes found mineral stones sticking to the metal nails in his sandals. That mineral received the name magnetite. In 2000 B.C., magnetic stones are mentioned in the oldest medical textbook ever discovered, the Yellow Emperor¡s Classic of Internal Medicine. In the 4th century B.C., the philosopher Aristotle was fascinated by magnets. And near the turn of the millennium Cleopatra, the beautiful Egyptian queen, is reported to have worn a magnet on her forehead. In the 4th century, Martel, a French doctor, used magnets to heal hand and feet's pain. In the 6th century, Alexandre de Tralles cured joint's pain with magnets.

Hall Abbas, Arab doctor, used it to treat spasms and feet's pain. In the 16th century, Paracelsus the European doctor, used magnets for inflammation. He was a brilliant thinker and a pioneer for many future magnet healers. In the 17th century, the court physician to Elizabeth I, William Gilbert, published De Magnete. It was the first comprehensive book on magnetism. He used ¡§lodestones¡¨ (magnets) to heal bleeding and for its astringent's properties. Maxwell, King Charles II's doctor wrote a book about magnet's healing powers. In the 18th century, the French Royal Society of Medicine concluded that magnets are antispasmodic, relieve strong pains and "cannot be ignored nor contested".

The German doctor Mesmer was a famous, but controversial magnet healer. It¡s questionable whether he did more to advance or hinder magnet therapy. He was a flamboyant showman and public relations self-promoter. Patients flocked to him and this gave magnet therapy much publicity, for better or for worse. In the 19th century, Doctor Magiorani and Charcot used it successfully too. In 1925, a French doctor, Durville, wrote a book about magnetotherapy, giving instructions to cure dozen of ailments with magnets. In 1976, in Boston (U.S.A.), the first International Conference on Biomagnetism was held. In 1991, in Munster, Germany, the eighth International Conference on Biomagnetism featured 240 presentations and attracted 400 participants. Magnetic therapy has arrived. In 1983, one of the greatest discoveries ever in magnetics was announced. Rare earth neodymium biomagnets were invented which are 700% as powerful as the older ceramic magnets. The neodymium biomagnets hold their charge indefinitely, with no significant loss of power after 10 years. At first, their cost was prohibitive, but now they are very economical. Today magnet therapy is seeing resurgence in use and is an officially approved therapy in over 45 countries worldwide.


During the past several years, magnetic devices have been claimed to relieve pain and to have therapeutic value against a large number of diseases and conditions. The way to evaluate such claims is to ask whether scientific studies have been published. Pulsed electromagnetic fields which induce measurable electric fields have been demonstrated effective for treating slow-healing fractures and have shown promise for a few other conditions. However, few studies have been published on the effect on pain of small, static magnets marketed to consumers. Explanations that magnetic fields "increase circulation," "reduce inflammation," or "speed recovery from injuries" are simplistic and are not supported by the weight of experimental evidence.

The main basis for the claims is a double-blind test study, conducted at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, which compared the effects of magnets and sham magnets on knee pain. The study involved 50 adult patients with pain related to having been infected with the poliovirus when they were children. A static magnetic device or a placebo device was applied to the patient's skin for 45 minutes. The patients were asked to rate how much pain they experienced when a "trigger point was touched." The researchers reported that the 29 patients exposed to the magnetic device achieved lower pain scores than did the 21 who were exposed to the placebo device. Although this study is cited by nearly everyone selling magnets, it provides no legitimate basis for concluding that magnets offer any health-related benefit.

Although the groups were said to be selected randomly, the ratio of women to men in the experimental group was twice that of the control group. If women happen to be more responsive to placebos than men, a surplus of women in the "treatment" group would tend to improve that group's score.
* The age of the placebo group was four years higher than that of the control group. If advanced age makes a person more difficult to treat, the "treatment" group would again have a scoring advantage.
* The investigators did not measure the exact pressure exerted by the blunt object at the trigger point before and after the study.
* Even if the above considerations have no significance, the study should not be extrapolated to suggest that magnets could relieve other types of pain.
* There was just one brief exposure and no systematic follow-up of patients. Thus there was no way to tell whether any improvement would be more than temporary.
* The authors themselves acknowledge that the study was a "pilot study." Pilot studies are done to determine whether it makes sense to invest in a larger more definitive study. They never provide a legitimate basis for marketing any product as effective against any symptom or health problem.

Two better-designed, longer-lasting pain studies have been negative:

* Researchers at the New York College of Podiatric Medicine have reported negative results in a study of patients with heel pain. Over a 4-week period, 19 patients wore a moulded insole containing a magnetic foil, while 15 patients wore the same type of insole with no magnetic foil. In both groups, 60% reported improvement, which suggests that the magnetic foil conveyed no benefit.
* More recently, researchers at the VA Medical Centre in Prescott, Arizona conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study involving 20 patients with chronic back pain. Each patient was exposed to real and sham bipolar permanent magnets during alternate weeks, for 6 hours per day, 3 days per week for a week, with a 1-week period between the treatment weeks. No difference in pain or mobility was found between the treatment and sham-treatment periods.


Magnets have also been claimed to increase circulation. This claim is false. If it were true, placing a magnet on the skin would make the area under the magnet become red, which it does not. Moreover, a well-designed study that actually measured blood flow has found no increase. The study involved 12 healthy volunteers who were exposed to either a 1000-gauss magnetic disk or an identically appearing disk that was not magnetic. No change in the amount or speed of blood flow was observed when either disk was applied to their arm. Magnetherapy, Inc, of Riviera Beach, Florida Beach, a company that has been subjected to two regulatory actions, manufactured the magnets.

Conclusion

I concur with my esteemed medical researchers, the facts are there is no scientific basis to conclude that small, static magnets can relieve pain or influence the course of any disease. In fact, many of today's products produce no significant magnetic field at or beneath the skin's surface.


References:
Mayrovitz HN and others. Assessment of the short-term effects of a permanent magnet on normal skin blood circulation via laser-Doppler flowmetry. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 6(1):9-12, 2002. Morales halts unproven claims for magnet therapy. News release, April 9, 1998.
Vallbona C, Hazelwood CF, Jurida G. Archives of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine 78:1200-1203, 1997.
Stephen Barrett, M.D. A Skeptical View.