Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Regarding scar tissue

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    Originally posted by eks View Post
    Not coming to any conclusion just yet but this article provides something to think about. We are talking 12-15k per treatment cycle.

    http://www.devicewatch.org/reports/mme.shtml
    Interesting. But why did the FDA provide the experimental license? Simple. It works and does no harm. Who do you know that would spend $750,000 on a clinic with machines that do not work? The writer, Dr. Stephen Barrett presents NO evidence that the MME does not work. Just his opinion based on reading website information. Did Dr. Barrett interview anyone who had been given MME treatment? He did not say. I believe his article is as dubious as his claims that the MME does not work.

    BTW, anyone please volunteer any information about EXACTLY HOW the body heals itself. When a surgeon cuts on someone, how does the body repair the seam? How do stem cells know where to go to replace other damaged cells? How do stem cells know how to convert to another cell? How do cells communicate with each other to coordinate repair? Why does scar tissue form? Why and how does scar tissue convert back to normal tissue after about 15 years? How does the body know it has been damaged and where the damage is? Why does the body seem to ignore damaged areas that contain scar tissue and not attempt a repair using stem cells?

    My guess is that NO one knows the answers to the above questions. But, what ever is going on inside the body to attempt to heal itself, the MME, in the area of the magnetic beam, seems to put the body's healing process in overdrive using the outside power source. And, the healing process speeds up to a much greater extent than doing nothing. Thats why there are so many different diseases and medical conditions that improve from the magnetic treatment.

    Dr. Barnett complained that there was no control group. Well, there are several hundred thousand people in America in wheelchairs (the control group) that are paralyzed to some extent who have had extensive medical care, the best that America can offer. They are not changing much after years and years in that condition.

    In contrast, people who have had MME treatment with a variety of neurological conditions are changing for the better. Think I remember reading about 85% of the treated persons report improvement. Maybe Dr. Barnett should talk to some of them.

    Comment


    • #17
      Originally posted by 6 Shooter View Post
      Interesting. But why did the FDA provide the experimental license? Simple. It works and does no harm. Who do you know that would spend $750,000 on a clinic with machines that do not work? The writer, Dr. Stephen Barrett presents NO evidence that the MME does not work. Just his opinion based on reading website information. Did Dr. Barrett interview anyone who had been given MME treatment? He did not say. I believe his article is as dubious as his claims that the MME does not work.

      BTW, anyone please volunteer any information about EXACTLY HOW the body heals itself. When a surgeon cuts on someone, how does the body repair the seam? How do stem cells know where to go to replace other damaged cells? How do stem cells know how to convert to another cell? How do cells communicate with each other to coordinate repair? Why does scar tissue form? Why and how does scar tissue convert back to normal tissue after about 15 years? How does the body know it has been damaged and where the damage is? Why does the body seem to ignore damaged areas that contain scar tissue and not attempt a repair using stem cells?

      My guess is that NO one knows the answers to the above questions. But, what ever is going on inside the body to attempt to heal itself, the MME, in the area of the magnetic beam, seems to put the body's healing process in overdrive using the outside power source. And, the healing process speeds up to a much greater extent than doing nothing. Thats why there are so many different diseases and medical conditions that improve from the magnetic treatment.

      Dr. Barnett complained that there was no control group. Well, there are several hundred thousand people in America in wheelchairs (the control group) that are paralyzed to some extent who have had extensive medical care, the best that America can offer. They are not changing much after years and years in that condition.

      In contrast, people who have had MME treatment with a variety of neurological conditions are changing for the better. Think I remember reading about 85% of the treated persons report improvement. Maybe Dr. Barnett should talk to some of them.
      6-shooter,

      I realize that you believe that this treatment works and I hope that it does. However, some of the language that you use is misleading. There is no such thing as an "experimental license" given out by the FDA (Food and Drug Administration). I believe that you are referring to an IND (Investigational Drug or Device Application). This designation is give when the FDA is convinced that the drug or device is safe enough to be applied to people under carefully monitored conditions, usually based on data from animal studies.

      An NDA (New Drug or Device Application) is the process through which all new drugs and devices, as well as old drugs or devices with new claims, must go through. The fact that a treatment is going through an NDA does not mean the FDA has approved the treatment. Efficacy has not been shown. Only crude safety has been shown. The clinical trials must show both safety and efficacy before the drug or device is finally "approved" by the FDA. During this approval process, doctors and manufacturers are not supposed to charge for the treatment.

      Let me repeat. The device and the treatment that it provides has not been shown to be effective. The doctors who are using it are testing the therapy to see if it is effective. The evidence that magnetic fields have any healing effect on the body is very limited and controversial.

      Wise

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by Wise Young View Post

        Let me repeat. The device and the treatment that it provides has not been shown to be effective. The doctors who are using it are testing the therapy to see if it is effective. The evidence that magnetic fields have any healing effect on the body is very limited and controversial. Wise
        Please provide your references to support the above statements.

        Please also state what you would like to see as evidence to demonstrate that a particular treatment is/was effective. I would like to provide you with my son's MRI of his C-6 spinal cord injury 2 years post injury and next day post 3rd. MME treatment. You could view, analyze, and post anything you wish about the report.

        I do except that the numbers of persons using magnetic therapy is very limited up to this point in time. So are the numbers receiving stem cells. Both procedures are certainly controversial. IMHO, as the numbers of persons receiving treatment continue to rise and show functional improvement, acceptance will rise at the FDA and within the medical community.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by 6 Shooter View Post
          Please provide your references to support the above statements.

          Please also state what you would like to see as evidence to demonstrate that a particular treatment is/was effective. I would like to provide you with my son's MRI of his C-6 spinal cord injury 2 years post injury and next day post 3rd. MME treatment. You could view, analyze, and post anything you wish about the report.

          I do except that the numbers of persons using magnetic therapy is very limited up to this point in time. So are the numbers receiving stem cells. Both procedures are certainly controversial. IMHO, as the numbers of persons receiving treatment continue to rise and show functional improvement, acceptance will rise at the FDA and within the medical community.
          6-shooter,

          I am sorry that I did not respond earlier. There is no credible clinical trial evidence that magnetic therapy is efficacious for any disease. Wikipedia summarizes this lack of evidence:

          http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_therapy
          A 2002 NSF report on public attitudes and understanding of science noted that magnet therapy is "not at all scientific."[16] A number of vendors make unsupported claims about magnet therapy by using pseudoscientific and new-age language. Such claims are unsupported by the results of scientific and clinical studies.[17] Most criticisms include:

          * The typical magnet used produces insufficient magnetic field to have any effect on muscle tissue, bones, blood vessels, or organs.[1]
          * Some manufacturers claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by interacting with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. There is no indication that circulatory benefits would result even if some blood component were to couple strongly to magnetic fields.
          * Others claim that the magnets can restore the body's theorized "electromagnetic energy balance", but no such balance is medically recognized.
          * Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed.[18]
          * There are claims that the south pole of a magnet acts differently on the body than the north pole.[19]
          * Many of the websites that promote the benefits of magnetic therapy belong to individuals and companies that profit from the sale of magnetic therapy products.
          Stephen Barrett's article "Magnet Therapy, a Skeptical View" [source]http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/magnet.html[/source] cites two studies that claim that magnetic therapy is effective for pain. I agree with him that neither study are convincing. Barrett points out that a number of state and other governmental organizations have sued manufacturers of magnetic devices for making false and misleading claims about their products. I realize that you disagree with the article but it makes a convincing argument that little or no data support the efficacy of the magnetic therapies.

          I am surprised that organizations such as AMRI are allowed to charge for the treatment. According to http://www.healing-arts.org/children/cp/cpmagnetic.htm web site, the cost of MME is usually $50.00 per hour and "the therapy is best taken by sleeping overnight under the magnet". A good night's sleep presumably would cost about $400. I suppose that one could go to sleep next to an MRI which has a 1.5-3.0T field compared to the 0.5T field being offered in an MME machine. Several scientific facilities with significant magnetic fields, including the Stanford Linear Accelerator. In fact, the Clarendon Facility in Oxford offers systems that provide magnetic fields of 18T or even higher pulsed fields ([source]http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/services/magnets.htm[/source]). The strongest magnetic, however, may be provided by the Large Hadron Collider whose 43-foot magnet imploded last year under the strength of its own field ([source]http://www.livescience.com/technology/070403_cern_prob.html[/source]).

          I am astounded by the number of web sites selling therapeutic magnets [source]http://www.1800wheelchair.com/asp/view-category-products.asp?category_id=714[/source]. You can pay up to $240 for a magnetic sleep pad that supposedly "improves circulation, accelerates healing and enhances pain relief". There are over a million web sites making ill-supported claims of efficacy. Most of these are scams. I suppose that it is not surprising that there are some organizations that are offering $50/hour therapeutic sessions with higher magnetic fields.

          Please, I do not want to see your son's MRI. MRI's do not show scar tissues in the spinal cord and there is no point in looking an individual MRI's without a before and after treatment comparison. A single case would not prove anything. By the way, it is not true that people with spinal cord injury do not improve over time. A lot of people improve during the years after an injury.

          If this were really so effective, there would be dozens or even hundreds of peer-reviewed clinical trial reports indicating that MME therapies are effective. However, I was unable to find a single convincing article. Most of the recent studies that I found concerning static magnetic field therapy have stated that the available studies are inadequate. Here are two of the most recent studies that I was able to find.
          1. Colbert AP, Wahbeh H, Harling N, Connelly E, Schiffke HC, Forsten C, Gregory WL, Markov MS, Souder JJ, Elmer P and King V (2007). Static Magnetic Field Therapy: A Critical Review of Treatment Parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. Helfgott Research Institute, National College of Natural Medicine, 049 SW, Porter Street, Portland, OR 97291, USA. acolbert@ncnm.edu. Static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, applied via a permanent magnet attached to the skin, is used by people worldwide for self-care. Despite a lack of established SMF dosage and treatment regimens, multiple studies are conducted to evaluate SMF therapy effectiveness. Our objectives in conducting this review are toi) summarize SMF research conducted in humans; (ii) critically evaluate reporting quality of SMF dosages and treatment parameters and (iii) propose a set of criteria for reporting SMF treatment parameters in future clinical trials. We searched 27 electronic databases and reference lists. Only English language human studies were included. Excluded were studies of electromagnetic fields, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnets placed on acupuncture points, animal studies, abstracts, posters and editorials. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design and 10 essential SMF parameters. Three reviewers assessed quality of reporting and calculated a quality assessment score for each of the 10 treatment parameters. Fifty-six studies were reviewed, 42 conducted in patient populations and 14 in healthy volunteers. The SMF treatment parameters most often and most completely described were site of application, magnet support device and frequency and duration of application. Least often and least completely described were characteristics of the SMF: magnet dimensions, measured field strength and estimated distance of the magnet from the target tissue. Thirty-four (61%) of studies failed to provide enough detail about SMF dosage to permit protocol replication by other investigators. Our findings highlight the need to optimize SMF dosing parameters for individual clinical conditions before proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial.
          2. Richmond SJ (2008). Magnet therapy for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (CAMBRA): A randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. Trials. 9: 53. Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, England, UK. sjr503@york.ac.uk. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory autoimmune disease. Although disease activity may be managed effectively with prescription drugs, unproven treatments such as magnet therapy are sometimes used as an adjunct for pain control. Therapeutic devices incorporating permanent magnets are widely available and easy to use. Magnets may also be perceived as a more natural and less harmful alternative to analgesic compounds. Of interest to health service researchers is the possibility that magnet therapy might help to reduce the economic burden of managing chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Magnets are extremely cheap to manufacture and prolonged treatment involves a single cost. Despite this, good quality scientific evidence concerning the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of magnet therapy is scarce. The primary aim of the CAMBRA trial is to investigate the effectiveness of magnet therapy for relieving pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS/DESIGN: The CAMBRA trial employs a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. Participant will each wear four devices: a commercially available magnetic wrist strap; an attenuated wrist strap; a demagnetised wrist strap; and a copper bracelet. Device will be allocated in a randomised sequence and each worn for five weeks. The four treatment phases will be separated by wash out periods lasting one week. Both participants and researchers will be blind, as far as feasible, to the allocation of experimental and control devices. In total 69 participants will be recruited from general practices within the UK. Eligible patients will have a verified diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis that is being managed using drugs, and will be experiencing chronic pain. Outcomes measured will include pain, inflammation, disease activity, physical function, medication use, affect, and health related costs. Data will be collected using questionnaires, diaries, manual pill counts and blood tests. DISCUSSION: Magnetism is an inherent property of experimental devices which is hard to conceal. The use of multiple control devices, including a copper bracelet, represents a concerted attempt to overcome methodological limitations associated with trials in this field. The trial began in July 2007. At the time of submission (August 2008) recruitment has finished, with 70 trial participants, and data collection is almost complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51459023.


          I don't expect to convince you that magnetic molecular energizing does not work. I am glad that your son is improving.

          Wise.

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by 6 Shooter View Post
            Please provide your references to support the above statements.

            Please also state what you would like to see as evidence to demonstrate that a particular treatment is/was effective. I would like to provide you with my son's MRI of his C-6 spinal cord injury 2 years post injury and next day post 3rd. MME treatment. You could view, analyze, and post anything you wish about the report.

            I do except that the numbers of persons using magnetic therapy is very limited up to this point in time. So are the numbers receiving stem cells. Both procedures are certainly controversial. IMHO, as the numbers of persons receiving treatment continue to rise and show functional improvement, acceptance will rise at the FDA and within the medical community.
            6-shooter,

            I am sorry that I did not respond earlier. There is no credible clinical trial evidence that magnetic therapy is efficacious for any disease. Wikipedia summarizes this lack of evidence:

            http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnet_therapy
            A 2002 NSF report on public attitudes and understanding of science noted that magnet therapy is "not at all scientific."[16] A number of vendors make unsupported claims about magnet therapy by using pseudoscientific and new-age language. Such claims are unsupported by the results of scientific and clinical studies.[17] Most criticisms include:

            * The typical magnet used produces insufficient magnetic field to have any effect on muscle tissue, bones, blood vessels, or organs.[1]
            * Some manufacturers claim that the magnets help to circulate the blood by interacting with the iron in hemoglobin, a major component of red blood cells. There is no indication that circulatory benefits would result even if some blood component were to couple strongly to magnetic fields.
            * Others claim that the magnets can restore the body's theorized "electromagnetic energy balance", but no such balance is medically recognized.
            * Even in the many times stronger magnetic fields used in magnetic resonance imaging, none of the claimed effects are observed.[18]
            * There are claims that the south pole of a magnet acts differently on the body than the north pole.[19]
            * Many of the websites that promote the benefits of magnetic therapy belong to individuals and companies that profit from the sale of magnetic therapy products.
            Stephen Barrett's article "Magnet Therapy, a Skeptical View" [source]http://www.quackwatch.org/04ConsumerEducation/QA/magnet.html[/source] cites two studies that claim that magnetic therapy is effective for pain. I agree with him that neither study are convincing. Barrett points out that a number of state and other governmental organizations have sued manufacturers of magnetic devices for making false and misleading claims about their products. I realize that you disagree with the article but it makes a convincing argument that little or no data support the efficacy of the magnetic therapies.

            I am surprised that organizations such as AMRI are allowed to charge for the treatment. According to http://www.healing-arts.org/children/cp/cpmagnetic.htm web site, the cost of MME is usually $50.00 per hour and "the therapy is best taken by sleeping overnight under the magnet". A good night's sleep presumably would cost about $400. I suppose that one could go to sleep next to an MRI which has a 1.5-3.0T field compared to the 0.5T field being offered in an MME machine. Several scientific facilities with significant magnetic fields, including the Stanford Linear Accelerator. In fact, the Clarendon Facility in Oxford offers systems that provide magnetic fields of 18T or even higher pulsed fields [source]http://www.physics.ox.ac.uk/services/magnets.htm[/source]. The strongest magnetic, however, may be provided by the Large Hadron Collider whose 43-foot magnet imploded last year under the strength of its own field [source]http://www.livescience.com/technology/070403_cern_prob.html[/source].

            I am astounded by the number of web sites selling therapeutic magnets [source]http://www.1800wheelchair.com/asp/view-category-products.asp?category_id=714[/source]. You can pay up to $240 for a magnetic sleep pad that supposedly "improves circulation, accelerates healing and enhances pain relief". There are over a million web sites making ill-supported claims of efficacy. Most of these are scams. I suppose that it is not surprising that there are some organizations that are offering $50/hour therapeutic sessions with higher magnetic fields.

            Please, I do not want to see your son's MRI. MRI's do not show scar tissues in the spinal cord and there is no point in looking an individual MRI's without a before and after treatment comparison. A single case would not prove anything. By the way, it is not true that people with spinal cord injury do not improve over time. A lot of people improve during the years after an injury.

            If this were really so effective, there would be dozens or even hundreds of peer-reviewed clinical trial reports indicating that MME therapies are effective. However, I was unable to find a single convincing article. Most of the recent studies that I found concerning static magnetic field therapy have stated that the available studies are inadequate. Here are two of the most recent studies that I was able to find.
            1. Colbert AP, Wahbeh H, Harling N, Connelly E, Schiffke HC, Forsten C, Gregory WL, Markov MS, Souder JJ, Elmer P and King V (2007). Static Magnetic Field Therapy: A Critical Review of Treatment Parameters. Evid Based Complement Alternat Med. Helfgott Research Institute, National College of Natural Medicine, 049 SW, Porter Street, Portland, OR 97291, USA. acolbert@ncnm.edu. Static magnetic field (SMF) therapy, applied via a permanent magnet attached to the skin, is used by people worldwide for self-care. Despite a lack of established SMF dosage and treatment regimens, multiple studies are conducted to evaluate SMF therapy effectiveness. Our objectives in conducting this review are toi) summarize SMF research conducted in humans; (ii) critically evaluate reporting quality of SMF dosages and treatment parameters and (iii) propose a set of criteria for reporting SMF treatment parameters in future clinical trials. We searched 27 electronic databases and reference lists. Only English language human studies were included. Excluded were studies of electromagnetic fields, transcranial magnetic stimulation, magnets placed on acupuncture points, animal studies, abstracts, posters and editorials. Data were extracted on clinical indication, study design and 10 essential SMF parameters. Three reviewers assessed quality of reporting and calculated a quality assessment score for each of the 10 treatment parameters. Fifty-six studies were reviewed, 42 conducted in patient populations and 14 in healthy volunteers. The SMF treatment parameters most often and most completely described were site of application, magnet support device and frequency and duration of application. Least often and least completely described were characteristics of the SMF: magnet dimensions, measured field strength and estimated distance of the magnet from the target tissue. Thirty-four (61%) of studies failed to provide enough detail about SMF dosage to permit protocol replication by other investigators. Our findings highlight the need to optimize SMF dosing parameters for individual clinical conditions before proceeding to a full-scale clinical trial.
            2. Richmond SJ (2008). Magnet therapy for the relief of pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis (CAMBRA): A randomised placebo-controlled crossover trial. Trials. 9: 53. Department of Health Sciences, The University of York, England, UK. sjr503@york.ac.uk. ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Rheumatoid arthritis is a common inflammatory autoimmune disease. Although disease activity may be managed effectively with prescription drugs, unproven treatments such as magnet therapy are sometimes used as an adjunct for pain control. Therapeutic devices incorporating permanent magnets are widely available and easy to use. Magnets may also be perceived as a more natural and less harmful alternative to analgesic compounds. Of interest to health service researchers is the possibility that magnet therapy might help to reduce the economic burden of managing chronic musculoskeletal disorders. Magnets are extremely cheap to manufacture and prolonged treatment involves a single cost. Despite this, good quality scientific evidence concerning the safety, effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of magnet therapy is scarce. The primary aim of the CAMBRA trial is to investigate the effectiveness of magnet therapy for relieving pain and inflammation in rheumatoid arthritis. METHODS/DESIGN: The CAMBRA trial employs a randomised double-blind placebo-controlled crossover design. Participant will each wear four devices: a commercially available magnetic wrist strap; an attenuated wrist strap; a demagnetised wrist strap; and a copper bracelet. Device will be allocated in a randomised sequence and each worn for five weeks. The four treatment phases will be separated by wash out periods lasting one week. Both participants and researchers will be blind, as far as feasible, to the allocation of experimental and control devices. In total 69 participants will be recruited from general practices within the UK. Eligible patients will have a verified diagnosis of rheumatoid arthritis that is being managed using drugs, and will be experiencing chronic pain. Outcomes measured will include pain, inflammation, disease activity, physical function, medication use, affect, and health related costs. Data will be collected using questionnaires, diaries, manual pill counts and blood tests. DISCUSSION: Magnetism is an inherent property of experimental devices which is hard to conceal. The use of multiple control devices, including a copper bracelet, represents a concerted attempt to overcome methodological limitations associated with trials in this field. The trial began in July 2007. At the time of submission (August 2008) recruitment has finished, with 70 trial participants, and data collection is almost complete. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Current Controlled Trials ISRCTN51459023.


            I don't expect to convince you that magnetic molecular energizing does not work. I am glad that your son is improving.

            Wise.

            Comment


            • #21
              Dr. Young. First, thank you so very much for taking your valuable time to reply. You prepared a thoughtful and detailed response.

              Would like to point out that the rules of FDA and the Investigational Review Board will currently NOT allow summation of the data in the AMRI data base. I called and asked. If a clinic releases this type of information, they will be shut down and their equipment seized. Supposedly, the FDA does not what the data corrupted until enough cases are presented to the Investigational Review Board to show no harm. The only data that the clinics can release is individual cases in a brief summary. Advertising is forbidden. This is the reason for the patient testimonials and brief summaries on the clinic websites. However, the clinics can answer prospective and current patient's numerous questions. I have also known of cases were MME pateints have volunteered to answer other new patients questions. I do this and do get calls and emails from time to time. So, for the current time being, it is only word of mouth that is allowed.

              The reality is that the MME speeds up the body's healing process a great deal. Therefore, there are many medical conditions (neurological and orthopedic) that the MME can treat. For example, I have met and talked with two women who were scheduled for total knee replacements. Both received about 200 hours of MME therapy and the magnet helped the body regrow the cartliage. They both cancelled the knee replacement surgery. I spoke with another woman with an infant child with severe brain damage who was on a feeding tube for months and not responsive. The infant has had over 200 hours of MME therapy and is no longer on a feeding tube. In fact, the infant is now standing with the Mom holding its hands for balance. Spoke with another woman who had a child born with Cerebal Palsy. The child grew up to become a woman and still could not sit up or walk after age 29. 500 hours plus under the MME and the woman could sit up on her own and walk with the assistance of a walker. My son and I met an SCI patient, a T-8 I think, at one of the clinics who received 150 hours of MME and gained feeling in his butt and hipps. His injury was 6-7 years old. The changes occured in these people while they are still at the clinic.

              I met another young man who had a gun shot in the leg and could not control his foot. He called the clinic back several months after his MME treatment to say he no longer needs his foot brace and can walk and lift his foot for the first time since his injury. Met another man who was there with a stroke. He arrived with a paralyzed right side and no bladder control. He could not move his right arm, hands, fingers, or leg and could not walk. He left the clinic walking with a cane, had regained bladder control, and had full movement of his right arm and wrist. His fingers did not move if I recall correctly.

              Just don't think that these people would agree with your statement that the MME does not work. Is it a cure (100% return of function)? No. However, each made notable progress, the same as my son. Would these changes have occurred without the MME, only God our creator knows that answer.

              It is true that the MME is going through clinical trials for low back pain. They need 20+ more cases to submit to the FDA before the review board completes their review. The individual doctors that run and own the clinics do so at their own expense. None of them are supported by multi-billion dollar universities.

              The MMEs are expensive as is the electricity to run them and keep them cool, not to mention the space and temporary living quarters for weeks on end for some persons receiving longer treatments. Some persons recieve treatment for up to 6-8 weeks at a time and stay at the clinic 24/7.

              Personally, I believe that magnets on the skin are a joke. These types of magnets are bi-directional and cancel out any healing benefits. Most magnetic mattress pads are also bi-directional as well including the Japanese model and any healing benefits are cancelled out as well. The trick is in designing a magnetic system where the body ONLY receives one side of the magnetic field. That is the negative field of the magnet. The Magnetico matress pads and the MME has been able to accomplish feat.

              Personally, I do not know how an MRI is constructed. Ever wonder why no one else is in the room when the MRI is operating. Ask someone in the field if the MRI room is lined with lead. If the answer comes back as yes, then they are protecting others from the positive field of the magnet which could seriously harm or mame someone at 20,000 gauss.

              You may be wondering why I know so much about this subject. Well, as my son's caregiver, I had a lot of free time, 6 weeks for one MME treatment and 4 weeks on another MME treatment session while my son was under the magnet. He was averaging 16-18 hours per day for 6 straight weeks, twice! Luckily, I was on leave from work to assist.

              As for my son's MRI, it does not matter one way or another to me. Your input may have provided other desperate SCI's with some information with which to make a decision for their own future. Will be most interested to follow your stem cell clinical trials in China. Why not in the US?
              Last edited by 6 Shooter; 10-31-2008, 11:13 PM. Reason: spacing.

              Comment

              Working...
              X