Bioelectromagnetics

[Cleopatra]

Wait a minute Mr. Coghill. There is a great advantage in discussing with a non-expert you know. It gives you the opportunity to make long, complicated and detailed discussion short without losing the scientific perspective. After all we are talking about magnets!

So far as I can tell from the Entrez Pubmed abstract of his study, Winemuller's study concerned plantar fasciitis, whereas the only magnetic insole producers' claims I have seen refer to other types of foot pain disorders*.

And yet a simple google search will prove you wrong Mr. Coghill. The magnetic insoles promise comfort ( striclty for legal reasons I suspect ) from the pains that is cause by plantar fasciitis mostly.

I repeat that your product doesn't make such claims, you just promise to warm up cold feet ( although allow me to note sir that if you sell wine coasters and you encourage people to drink more wine you will have cured cold feet as well!! ) and in my opinion this is indicative that you know that a magnetic insoles do not work at all.

I note that Weintraub and Cole more recently produced a study confirming the positive effects of PEMF on foot pain, (not the same as static magnets)

Yes but we are talking about the static magnets business here.

and that Weintraub had some critical coments on the Winemiller study which were also published in JAMA, but not detailed by Pubmed.

really? According to Skeptic Winemiller did nothing but to perform a doubleblind experiment.

I cannot seem to access the Skeptic Mag. page 12 article from the link provided by Cleopatra.

Oh you won't find this on-line. I will try to scan and e-mail you the short article.

If you think our promises are subjective and vague, take a look at the TV ads from the majority of minor ailments commercials!

Oh please! This is not really an argument. The same way the " since those magnets do not harm anybody it's ok to sell them" is not a valid argument.

Static magnets improve the bioavailablity of molecular oxygen in poorly vascularised areas of the body (Ukhubo et al., 1996, etc) . Is that precise enough for you? I doubt most members of the public would understand that the importance of that, though.

Simple consumers like me google and in google you can find nothing but references to experiments that showed the placebo effect of the static magnets.

As for Darat, dear Mr. Coghill let us not jump into conclusion that easily. I mean he sent an e-mail. I have been e-mailing your lab for a week with no luck and I had to call your office to find a way did you see me implying things about your honesty here?

Please.

But this is easy. Now I need to find out why you insist so much on Moulder.

 

[richardm]

As for Darat, dear Mr. Coghill let us not jump into conclusion that easily. I mean he sent an e-mail. I have been e-mailing your lab for a week with no luck and I had to call your office to find a way did you see me implying things about your honesty here?

Plus, Darat hasn't posted anywhere since Monday, so he could be away or otherwise engaged.

 

[BillHoyt]

I dunno. It seems to be a habit of skeptics that when disproved they do'nt have the honesty to admit this, but just say nothing. I am concluding from Darat's stern reply of silence that he now concedes that my claim was completely correct.

A good scientist learns:
a) not to make hasty generalizations and
b) to spin alternate hypotheses

 

[Prester John]

No I couldnt get along to BHS this year since i was iat the Bioelectrochemistry meeting in Florence, but I would not be surprised if my co-committee member at IoB Rob Lawless was there. Perhaps you know him?

The name rings a vague Bell; Haematology is a secondary part of my job; but when i go back to work i'll ask around.

Alas i have not read the Biology of the Cell page(s) you suggested, but i'll find a copy and read it.

You have described one of the procedures you are carrying out, and the general group (quinones) that you are looking at. Are you looking at anything else, other agents or other indicators of activity?

 

[Darat]

I dunno. It seems to be a habit of skeptics that when disproved they do'nt have the honesty to admit this, but just say nothing. I am concluding from Darat's stern reply of silence that he now concedes that my claim was completely correct.

I have not received any response from Professor Henshaw.

My email was sent Wednesday 5th May at 9.16 to the email address on the Bristol University website: see http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/track_analysis/Denis.htm


(Edited to correct link.)

 

[BillHoyt]

I have not received any response from Professor Henshaw.

My email was sent Wednesday 5th May at 9.16 to the email address on the Bristol University website: see http://www.phy.bris.ac.uk/research/track_analysis/Denis.htm


(Edited to correct link.)

I haven't heard much from my side of the investigation either. That part would make sense if the claims are true. Your part doesn't make sense if the claims are true. One would think he'd be eager to talk about it. One can only spin hypotheses...

 

[cogreslab]

Thanks Darat for unhooking my premature conclusions!

Yes we are doing other bioelectromagnetics research, but most of this is commercial in confidence and I cannot discuss it publicly at this stage.

Is anyone interested in trying out these insoles for free? AS Cleopatra says, we only claim they assist in keeping the feet warm, and I have briefly set out a plausible biological explanation of why this might occur. Not being an expert in feet, I am not wholly familiar with that literature, so am quite prepared to stand corrected (attempt at a small joke here).

 

[cogreslab]

"in google you can find nothing but references to experiments that showed the placebo effect of the static magnets".

This statement surprises me enormously. I will have a look myself.

 

[cogreslab]

Placebo only? Here are a couple of published studies I found from Google in less than five minutes:

1. Vallbona C, Hazelwood CF, Jurida G. Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: A double-blind pilot study. Archives of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine 78:1200-1203, 1997.


2. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003 May;84(5):736-46.

Static magnetic field therapy for symptomatic diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial.

Weintraub MI, Wolfe GI, Barohn RA, Cole SP, Parry GJ, Hayat G, Cohen JA, Page JC, Bromberg MB, Schwartz SL; Magnetic Research Group.

Department of Neurology, New York Medical College, Valhalla, NY, USA. miwneuro@pol.net

OBJECTIVE: To determine if constant wearing of multipolar, static magnetic (450G) shoe insoles can reduce neuropathic pain and quality of life (QOL) scores in symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy (DPN). DESIGN: Randomized, placebo-control, parallel study. SETTING: Forty-eight centers in 27 states. PARTICIPANTS: Three hundred seventy-five subjects with DPN stage II or III were randomly assigned to wear constantly magnetized insoles for 4 months; the placebo group wore similar, unmagnetized device. INTERVENTION: Nerve conduction and/or quantified sensory testing were performed serially. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Daily visual analog scale scores for numbness or tingling and burning and QOL issues were tabulated over 4 months. Secondary measures included nerve conduction changes, role of placebo, and safety issues. Analysis of variance (ANOVA), analysis of covariance (ANCOVA), and chi-square analysis were performed. RESULTS: There were statistically significant reductions during the third and fourth months in burning (mean change for magnet treatment, -12%; for sham, -3%; P<.05, ANCOVA), numbness and tingling (magnet, -10%; sham, +1%; P<.05, ANCOVA), and exercise-induced foot pain (magnet, -12%; sham, -4%; P<.05, ANCOVA). For a subset of patients with baseline severe pain, statistically significant reductions occurred from baseline through the fourth month in numbness and tingling (magnet, -32%; sham, -14%; P<.01, ANOVA) and foot pain (magnet, -41%; sham, -21%; P<.01, ANOVA). CONCLUSIONS: Static magnetic fields can penetrate up to 20mm and appear to target the ectopic firing nociceptors in the epidermis and dermis. Analgesic benefits were achieved over time.

 

[cogreslab]

Skeptics conduct: Darat was not the only example I had in mind. Could anyone tell me what is their conduct if one of the claims made by the skeptics group are seen to be unfounded? Do they admit the error or say nothing, or simply move on to some other critical dialogue?

When I am proved right about Henshaw's MRC funding cessation should I expect to see any acknowledgement or should I not hold my breath on that account?

 

[Darat]

Skeptics conduct: Darat was not the only example I had in mind. Could anyone tell me what is their conduct if one of the claims made by the skeptics group are seen to be unfounded? Do they admit the error or say nothing, or simply move on to some other critical dialogue?

When I am proved right about Henshaw's MRC funding cessation should I expect to see any acknowledgement or should I not hold my breath on that account?

You've named me so I would appreciate if you state clearly what example of conduct I have shown with my posts in this thread?

 

[richardm]

Skeptics conduct: Darat was not the only example I had in mind. Could anyone tell me what is their conduct if one of the claims made by the skeptics group are seen to be unfounded? Do they admit the error or say nothing, or simply move on to some other critical dialogue?

We're all individuals, so you'll get a different response depending on who it is. It's not like there's a group policy or anything. You'll probably find Darat to be amongst the most honest of all the posters here.

Having said that, you'll usually see a better attitude than that of many True Believers in various things. In some cases, they'll produce a piece of information that will be comprehensively dismantled and shown to be false. Then, the next time the subject comes up, the same piece of information is re-presented by the same poster, as though it were something new and exciting.

 

[cogreslab]

To Darat: Please accept my apology. I had begun to think that you had actually verified my statement but had chosen not to post the verification. So really your case was not a very good example at all, because you immediately stepped in to say you had as yet received no response regarding Henshaw's funding.

My question was "What happens if a skeptic's skepticism is shown to be unfounded? Do they then admit their error or simply fold their tent and silently fade away? Were that to happen routinely, the group would be no further forward. So may I offer a ground rule here: that if someone having challenged me or other posts then finds me or the other post was right, they should then post their acceptance. That way we can progress the argument. You see, if not, then no one will eventually bother to put the argument forward in the first place, since even if they were to win it, there would be no recognition of that fact.

 

[Cleopatra]

AS Cleopatra says, we only claim they assist in keeping the feet warm, and I have briefly set out a plausible biological explanation of why this might occur. Not being an expert in feet, I am not wholly familiar with that literature, so am quite prepared to stand corrected (attempt at a small joke here).

You might not be an expert in feet sir and you might talk about biological explanations that might occur but you sell your insoles without any hesitation...

All around winter I am involved in outdoor activities so, I use thermal insoles I purchase by my pharmasict for 3 Euros.

Could you explain me please why I have to choose your insoles to the thermal insoles I can find even in a supermarket? What makes your product exceptional and how can I test your claim? I hope that you will not ask me to test them. It's May in Athens and I don't know if you have ever sailed in the Mediterannean during spring time...

Now. As to the tests regarding magnets. I suppose that you think that it's fair for me to believe you instead of this article for example.

Why?

"What happens if a skeptic's skepticism is shown to be unfounded? Do they then admit their error or simply fold their tent and silently fade away? Were that to happen routinely, the group would be no further forward. So may I offer a ground rule here: that if someone having challenged me or other posts then finds me or the other post was right, they should then post their acceptance. That way we can progress the argument.

Well, Mr Coghill I guess that you will have to stay with us for a bit longer to see what happens when we are proven wrong and how we react.

You see, if not, then no one will eventually bother to put the argument forward in the first place, since even if they were to win it, there would be no recognition of that fact.

Pedantry! It always gets the best out of me.

Let me ask you something in my turn. So far you haven't replied to Hoyt's question regarding your challenge, you haven't replied to my questions regarding the PhoneDome people, we have took up the obligation to support claims you have made ( and you have some nerve to complain for not achieving to satisfy you so far, allow me to observe).

Would you care to give a name to your attitude or will you leave us to name it the same way you have left us to provide evidence for your claims?

 

[cogreslab]

Sailing in the Med: yes, I had my own boat there and also delivered a 40 footer from Antibes in France to Kusadasi in Turkey during February, with a few force elevens on the way. I now know how Ulysses felt e.g. approaching the enormous lee shore of Italy in a force ten, unable to come off the wind, with Ostia closed, and with five of us trying to hold the helm so as to stop the boat broaching. I learned how to surf a sailboat in a gale during that trip. But that's beside the point.

Jim Livingstone's article on static magnets is quite fair considering the source, but it was a few years out of date, and there have now been a number of published clinical trials now. Hong's study used magnets at field strengths far too low to have any acute biological effects. Despite his skepticism he doesn't actually dismiss magnet therapy please note.

Haven't we debated my challenge enough yet?! My position remains that it brings dramatically into question the NRPB guidelines which in my view are responsible for hundreds of deaths each year, and are much higher than those in other European countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Russia, and Italy.. As for the Phonedome people, you are unfairly blaming me for their iniquity.

Why Moulder?, you previously asked. Not only do his Q and A sites represent the most complete coverage of the establishment's viewpoint I have yet seen on the web, but they originate in the very heartland (Wisconsin) of the military's use of ELF for potentially global destructive purposes (except perhaps for Brooks Airforce base). His website was drawn to this thread's attention not by me but by another poster, and it makes good sense to use Moulder's critique as a base for response, because most of you do not know about all the issues being debated by bioelectromagnetics scientists at this time. As I said, I have wanted to create a comprehensive response to his biased answers for several years, so this seems as good a time as any.

 

[cogreslab]

Moulder’s Q and A site (EMF and powerlines)

Question 3:

Why do different types of electromagnetic energy sources produce different biological effects?

Comment on his answer: Moulder does not answer this question very well. There is little argument with his description of the damaging biological effects of ionising radiation, but when it comes to non-ionising radiation and electromagnetic fields, the explanation is totally inadequate.

For example:

"At lower frequencies, such as those characteristic of visible light, radio-frequency radiation, and microwaves, the energy of a photon is very much below those needed to disrupt chemical bonds. This part of the electromagnetic spectrum is termed non-ionizing. Because non-ionizing electromagnetic energy cannot break chemical bonds".

This means that Moulder only regards the effects of EMF as relating to the level of energy contained in the wave. But we all know that the radio wave transmitters now permeating the globe are not created for their energetic impact but for the information they contain. This information can be frequency as well as amplitude dependent. (FM and AM radio). Life forms generally, and multicellular creatures in particular, have evolved in a world largely devoid of alternating electric fields and radiation, and it is only natural therefore that life control processes (e.g. instructions to cells to divide, or the distinction between self and non-self, or navigation or prey detection) should rely on electric fields and radiation rather than magnetic, since these offer a far better signal to noise ratio and less intereference (until now). Thus it is not necessary for non-ionising EMF to change chemical bonds in order to have a disruptive effect. That is the essential flaw in Moulder’s argument, and why for example sharks can react to electric fields as low as ¼ of a millionth of a volt, which if they only respionded to energy would not be the case.

Common examples of these non-energetic ("non-thermal") effects are many in the scientific literature. In daily life the use of infra red emitters to deter or confuse insects and some animals is one simple example (Callahan, 1968).

 

[cogreslab]

How curious! Another long period of silence from the skeptics! Am I finally making headway here?!

 

[cogreslab]

To PJ: You can read the ecological report on the ELF transmitter on the web. http://books.nap.edu/books/0309055903/html/53.html#pagetop
The work on slime moulds and electric fields is instructive, because the critical review committee were very worried about the outcome and study design (see page 53 of their report), and said so. But the point is that these experiments were monitoring the effect of the ELF transmitter's electric fields on respiration and ATP synthesis, which is your area of interest. We use Clarke oxygen electrodes in our lab to assess the effect of similar fields on lymphocytes.

 

[Cleopatra]

congreslab said:

Jim Livingstone's article on static magnets is quite fair considering the source, but it was a few years out of date, and there have now been a number of published clinical trials now. Hong's study used magnets at field strengths far too low to have any acute biological effects. Despite his skepticism he doesn't actually dismiss magnet therapy please note.

Yes I noticed that the article demonstates skepticism without dismissing anything at all that's why I chose to quote this article instead of an extreme one. I am not in the position to know the latest clinical trials, Skeptic's article refers to one for example.

In this forum I have been saying in various discussions about different topics that the fact that somethings are difficult to define must not discourage us from trying until we find a way.

This is what I think. As somebody who hasn't studied physics but suffers from pains on the back, uses thermal insoles, a cell phone and drinks wine, there must be a way for me to check claims. When I see that profit is involved although I am not against profit ( Hey! I am a lawyer!) my skepticism doubles Mr. Coghill and I start looking for the motives behind the claims.

Haven't we debated my challenge enough yet?! My position remains that it brings dramatically into question the NRPB guidelines which in my view are responsible for hundreds of deaths each year, and are much higher than those in other European countries like Switzerland, Sweden, Austria, Russia, and Italy..

Your challenge is theatrical and therefore problematic to put it politely.

As for the Phonedome people, you are unfairly blaming me for their iniquity.

Well I don't think so sir considering the fact that you came here to defend the shield the first place.

Why Moulder?, you previously asked. Not only do his Q and A sites represent the most complete coverage of the establishment's viewpoint I have yet seen on the web, but they originate in the very heartland (Wisconsin) of the military's use of ELF for potentially global destructive purposes (except perhaps for Brooks Airforce base).

From what I have read Moulder is considered equally extreme and you keep using the word establishment. You belong to the establishment as well you know.

I now know how Ulysses felt e.g. approaching the enormous lee shore of Italy in a force ten, unable to come off the wind, with Ostia closed, and with five of us trying to hold the helm so as to stop the boat broaching

An Aglosaxon cannot really understand Ulysses, he would never need to be tied on the boad in order to resist to the Sirens for start...
Just teasing here

 

[Cleopatra]

How curious! Another long period of silence from the skeptics! Am I finally making headway here?!

I might appreciate very much the fact that you came here in the pit with the lions and you gave your fight in quite a remarkable manner I must admit. You never resorted to name calling and stuff but yet my pride doesn't let me to accept to be ridiculed in front of my face.So please do not repeat that.

I am not in the position to argue with you on a scientific level and in your field and I wish you took that as a demonstration of respect towards the discussion.

You haven't been that talkative when answering to the simple questions of the consumer though Mr. Coghill and you rely on Darat to provide evidence for your claims regarding the evil establishment.

Don't forget that.