 | Magnetic Therapy
• A natural remedy to stop menstrual cramps or period pain • | Welcome, today is |
 |
| A HISTORY AND INTRODUCTION TO MAGNET THERAPYIt has been known for some time that the behaviour of certain types of biological materials is influenced by magnetic fields (Reno & Nutini, 1963). Subtle magnetic fields can produce a physiological effect. For example, pico-tesla range electromagnetic fields have been shown to have significant effects on nerve regeneration (Turing, 1952). Electrical activity exists in the body at all times e.g. the beating heart. The heart is the biggest electromagnetic field generator in the body (Eyster et al, 1933). Mechanical loading of bones generates electrical currents. The discovery of magnetic material (deposits of magnetite) in the human brain may suggest that we are physiologically designed to respond to magnetic fields ( Kirschvink et al, 1992). It has been postulated that pathological state may result from misalignment of sub-microscopic magnetic fields from their natural state and that applying a magnet allows for a physiological re-orientation of order and coherence in molecules. We now know that wound and hard tissue repair process involves electric currents. Becker & Selden (1985) proposed the existence of an electromagnetic system in the body that controlled tissue healing. When the electrical balance of the body is disturbed by an injury, an injury current is generated, with the resultant shift in the body’s current triggering a set of biological repair systems. As healing progresses the injury current diminishes to zero. It has been noted from Space flight that deprivation of the electromagnetic wave between the earth’s surface and the ionosphere leads to abnormal body functioning (Owen, 1986) The following historical review highlights some of the recorded evidence of the therapeutic use of magnets. I am indebted to the excellent review and treatise of electromagnetic fields published by Dr. Roger Machlis (1993). For more than 2000 years effects of magnets and low frequency electromagnetic fields on biological processes have been debated. Magnetic therapy was used in Ancient Egypt, then by Physicians such as Hippocrates and Galen and in the Middle Ages by Paracelsus. The use of magnets to treat musculo-skeletal disorders such as gout and muscle spasms dates back thousands of years to the Greeks, Persians and Chinese physicians. The Greek philosopher Aristotle was perhaps the first person in recorded history to mention the therapeutic properties of natural magnets in the 3rd century BC. In the 2nd century BC, Galen, the Greek physician and writer, applied natural magnets to different parts of the body. Consequently lodestone (naturally occurring magnetic iron ore) bracelets, amulets and other devices began to appear. | ||||
In the 1st century BC Chinese physicians discovered and recorded the effect that changes in the earths magnetic field have on health. By 1000 AD Persian physicians were documenting the use of magnets to relieve spasm and treat gout. Plato claimed that it was Euripides who first coined the term “magnet” and attributed magnetic force to a kind of mineral soul within the stone. (Quinan, 1885). Peter Peregrinus is credited with writing the first major postclassical discourse on magnetism in 1289, describing in great detail the use of the magnetic compass. Magnetic cures for gout, arthritis, poisoning and baldness are documented in many medieval works. (Mourino, 1991). Paracelsus (1493-1542). Investigated the medicinal properties of lodestones in the treatment of epilepsy, diarrhoea and hemorrhage. Pharmacists in Europe were using powdered lodestone in elixirs for topical application. William Gilbert (1544-1603) a physician to Queen Elizabeth I, wrote in his book De Magnete (1600) (Butterfield J, 1991) hundreds of detailed experiments on electricity and terrestrial magnetism- and debunking many quack medicinal uses of the magnet. By the mid 18th century durable high power magnets were available throughout Europe. Czech Jesuit Maximillian Hell published a treatise on magnetism in 1762 and his work inspired interest from a younger University colleague Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815). He was trained in mathematics, medicine and law and his doctoral thesis “Dissertatio physicomedice de Planetarum influxu” in 1766 dealt with the effects of gravitational fields and cycles on human health. He coined the term “animal magnetism” based on his theories that gravitational forces were able to produce a sympathetic magnetic flux capable of profound neuropsychomatic and constitutional effects. He conducted preliminary clinical trials of these theories in 1774 and in 1775 published his first medical treatise entitled “On the medicinal uses of the magnet”. His term “animal magnetism” was coined to describe magnetic forces which he believed could become misaligned leading to physiological asynchrony and that restoration of these malaligned forces could restore health. His methods became popular throughout the salons of Europe. In 1784 a controlled study performed by Antoine Lovoisier, Guillotin and Benjamin Franklin concluded that the efficacy of magnetic healing occurred only in the patient’s mind. Mesmer challenged them to allow patients with refractory neuropsychiatric illness to be randomly allocated to either his treatment or the best alternative medical treatment that they could offer, but they refused, affirming that they did not discount the possible beneficial effects of Mesmer’s therapy, but more its basis as a objective biophysical force. Whilst in France, Mesmer’s work was labeled as quackery he had stimulated enough interest elsewhere to generate clinical research in the field. In 1795, a Connecticut physician Elisha Perkins developed a therapeutic device based on magnetism and electromedicine. Based on testimonial evidence and satisfied customers, Perkins was awarded a U.S. patent for the device from the government. His son Benjamin acquired a British patent for the device. It was thought by many, and indeed gained a reputation, to be one of the great therapeutic marvels of the turn of the century. Attempts by the medical establishment in Europe and the U.S. to discredit the device were met with charges of physician greed, professional arrogance and deliberate restriction of “alternative health care approaches”. By the time of Perkins death in 1799, electromagnetic medicine was well established in the treatment of many different diseases. So popular were the devices at this time that the 19th century has been referred to as “the Electromagnetic era of medical quackery”. The work of Christian Oersted in 1820 and Michael Faraday and Joseph Henry firmly launched the concept and application of electro-magnetism. (Mourino, 1991). In 1842 Irish doctor William Stokes and American doctor John Bell were obtaining successful results with their primitive biomagnetic treatments at Dublin’s Meath Hospital. In 1843 Reverend Jacob Baker postulated in his pamphlet “Human Magnetism” a vital fluid pervading all natural objects, providing forces of electricity and magnetism and serving as a vital link between mind and body. (Baker,1843). He believed that mobilization of this force could be produced by the will or by external magnetic fields and could, when activated, effect cure from many diseases, including epilepsy, asthma and even cancer. In the 1880’s Dr. C. J. Thacher was responsible for the development of “magnetic garments” with which he claimed to be able to cure anything including paralysis. A pamphlet put out by his company explained that the vigor of life in plant, animal and man was almost entirely dependent on the magnetic energy of the sun. Another doctrine put forward by proponents of magnetic theory at the time was that the iron content of blood made it the primary magnetic conductor of the body and that of the blood’s ability to absorb magnetic power from the atmosphere was compromised by unhealthy living. There was evidence that by the late 19th century the medical establishment was beginning to accept the role of electromagnetism in the treatment of some diseases, although the concept was still controversial. In 1887, Robert Bartholow’s textbook “Medical Electricity” reported that the magnetic and electric currents induced by placing magnets on the skin resulted in the “very extensive subjective impressions of heightened organic activity….. these results were so uniform that there seemed to be no doubt of their genuineness”. Controlled trials performed at the turn of the century produced less convincing results of the efficacy of electromagnetism. This contradictory data made it difficult for the medical establishment to either condone or restrict the practice of magnetic healing. By the time of the Second World
War, it would seem that the physiologic effects of electromagnetic fields were
no longer catching the attention of the academic medical journals. However at
this time Russian army doctors were using magnets following limb amputation to
promote wound healing. | |||||
In 1959, Kyoichi Nakagawa MD, a leading authority on therapeutic effects of magnetism on the human body discovered that some symptomatic conditions respond favourably to magnetic therapy when other modalities fail. Barnothy in the 1960s reviewed all the available data leading to his published two volume work entitled “Biological effects of magnetic fields” in 1969. Some of the “in vitro” work that he reports on suggests strongly that magnetic fields, at least at a cellular level, have subtle physiologic consequences. The advent of Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) in recent years has given the concept of magnetic interaction with the human body more credibility. MRI exposes the body to magnetic fields of the order of 1-2 Tesla (10 to 20,000 gauss). In conclusion, the historical evidence highlights the debate over the efficacy of magnetism to achieve positive health effects. However, much of this debate seems to focus on the physiologic basis of the effect rather than of investigating the evidence of a real effect. The debate on physiologic influence of biomagnetism has been somewhat re-awakened by more recent epidemiological studies (Jauchem & Merrit,1991; Milham,1982) analyzing cancer deaths in relation to electromagnetic field (EMF) exposure. A small but significant relation between occupational EMF exposure and leukemia was reported by Foster in 1992. Other studies have reported of other health risks such as male breast cancer, chromosomal abnormalities, and several other health hazards. (Michaelson, 1987). A number of important studies have concluded a small but significant relation between childhood domestic EMF and leukemia (Savitz et al, 1988) .The general concordance of these results has led many investigations to revisit the EMF problem. One of the prices that we pay as technology advances is an increase in electromagnetic pollution. Our environment of power lines, and ever increasing populous of mobile phones and computers has led to controversies over the effect of this electromagnetic pollution on our health. Geomagnetic storms are associated with an increase in the number of cases of myocardial infarction (Brecus et al, 1995; Andronova et al, 1982). Small mammals and humans deprived of natural geomagnetic oscillations suffer ill-health (Wever, 1973). The dysregulation of these natural fields by technological devices emitting artificial fields and radiations have been reported to have adverse effects on health (Wertheimer & Leeper, 1979; Savitz & Wachtel, 1988; Hardell & Holmberg, 1995). Electromagnetic fields have been shown to alter EEG signals, alter DNA synthesis, reduce melatonin synthesis, reduce immune response, increase messenger RNA transcription rate, alter enzyme activity and influence the blood brain barrier. Conversely, positive effects on health have been described of magnetic fields of only a few hundred nanoTesla with frequencies in the range of 7 to 8 Hz. If indeed high-energy electromagnetic fields can disrupt human physiology it perhaps challenge us to wonder if more subtle magnetic fields could have a health enhancing effect. We should rather than being dismissive, examine more carefully the potential interaction of magnetic fields with the body’s biorhythms. Maybe our ancestors were stumbling on something that could be of immeasurable benefit to us both now and in the future. The purpose of this article was to systematically review the evidence for the efficacy of static magnetic fields in the treatment of pain. The public acceptance of magnet therapy (and alternative/complementary therapy in general) far outweighs its acceptance by the medical community. We live in an era where evidence-based medicine is vogue. By this we mean evidence of effectiveness or benefit over and above “the placebo”. As with all treatments it is important to know that they are efficacious but also that they are safe. The Japanese have used magnets for years to treat chronic fatigue syndrome and have suggested that an increase in environmental electromagnetic pollution and/or progressive inability to be energized by the earth’s magnetic field (Rosch, 1998) is important in its aetiology. The Yellow Emperor’s Canon of Internal Medicine, some 4,000 years ago also talks about stones and heat and magnets working over acupuncture meridians. In the last 2 decades the Japanese have been using magnets to relieve pain. There is little doubt that oscillating electromagnetic fields can relieve pain and inflammation but static magnets are motionless magnetic fields until recently there have been very few studies of the efficacy of static magnetic fields in pain. There are many anecdotal reports of effective pain relief from static magnets from users including athletes (White,1998) and physicians (Weintraub,2000) and unpublished reports of increased healing and reduced pain by physicians (Barnothy,1964; Henren,1997; Ruibal,1997). In 1938, Dr Hanson reported pain relief on himself after application of a static magnet. Estimate worldwide profits from sales of static magnets exceed $5 billion annually. A quest for analgesia would appear to be a major part of these sales and it is hard to believe that devices that were ineffective could sustain this level of turnover. After 2,000 years of deliberation, the jury is still out. A bone growth stimulator, which works by electromagnetism, has an 80% success rate in promoting the union of non-healing fractures and has FDA approval (Bassett et al,1982). A similar device has also been approved for aiding female incontinence (Galloway et al, 2000). Armed with this information one would have expected a huge interest in the potential further applications of electromagnetic fields to promote healing in other clinical situations but this field does not appear to occupy a significant proportion of Medical Research. Most early research on magnets took place in Europe but the research in North America is now expanding. Compiled and edited by Dr. Eccles -
This is taken from a dossier entitled | |||||