|
|
Extreme Veteran
Posts: 542
 
| FLITASTIC - 2018-05-14 1:03 PM
runfastturnsmooth - 2018-05-14 5:42 AM
Bear - 2018-05-13 9:41 PM
Joe Mauer makes about $500,000 a week, year round. He can afford to buy $10-20k gimmicks on the outside chance it might make his sore knee feel better. If it doesn’t work, he can throw it away or give it away. Same with NFL quarterbacks that make 8 figure incomes.
That's great  Good for those guys I guess....
Most horse ppl don't buy these to use on themselves. Most ppl don't own these machines. A vet, trainer, or equine chiro/massage/therapy person does. We vet wrap ourselves, take pain meds and go back to work.
But to say it's a gimmick for vet medicine is an inaccurate statement.
That's like saying an injection is a gimmick....
Do injections heal broken bones or tore tendons? No
Do they make a horse feel better? Yes
A magnawave treatment costs about 40-50$ per session for your horse depending on your location. That's cheaper than an antibiotic, a steroid, and a sedative. If your saying the average joe can't afford it, then the average joe can't afford injections either.
Naw, antibiotics are cheap ( The ones my vet gave me are 100.00 for 500 pills ), Steroids are REALLY CHEAP 100cc bottle of Dex cost me 9.00, and Sedatives are in the Middle. My bottle of Ace (50cc bottle ) cost me 19.00. The difference is, those medications WORK and money well spent.
NO sweetie, I was talking about what are in the cheapest version of an injection minus HA
Not orally or individually but as an injection bc some ppl believe injections are gimmicks and they have the "science" to prove it.
Edited by runfastturnsmooth 2018-05-14 1:18 PM
| |
| | |
 Expert
Posts: 5290
 
| runfastturnsmooth - 2018-05-14 11:15 AM
FLITASTIC - 2018-05-14 1:03 PM
runfastturnsmooth - 2018-05-14 5:42 AM
Bear - 2018-05-13 9:41 PM
Joe Mauer makes about $500,000 a week, year round. He can afford to buy $10-20k gimmicks on the outside chance it might make his sore knee feel better. If it doesn’t work, he can throw it away or give it away. Same with NFL quarterbacks that make 8 figure incomes.
That's great Good for those guys I guess....
Most horse ppl don't buy these to use on themselves. Most ppl don't own these machines. A vet, trainer, or equine chiro/massage/therapy person does. We vet wrap ourselves, take pain meds and go back to work.
But to say it's a gimmick for vet medicine is an inaccurate statement.
That's like saying an injection is a gimmick....
Do injections heal broken bones or tore tendons? No
Do they make a horse feel better? Yes
A magnawave treatment costs about 40-50$ per session for your horse depending on your location. That's cheaper than an antibiotic, a steroid, and a sedative. If your saying the average joe can't afford it, then the average joe can't afford injections either.
Naw, antibiotics are cheap ( The ones my vet gave me are 100.00 for 500 pills ), Steroids are REALLY CHEAP 100cc bottle of Dex cost me 9.00, and Sedatives are in the Middle. My bottle of Ace (50cc bottle ) cost me 19.00. The difference is, those medications WORK and money well spent.
NO sweetie, I was talking about what are in the cheapest version of an injection minus HA
Not orally or individually but as an injection bc some ppl believe injections are gimmicks and they have the "science" to prove it.
I see what your saying. IA injections. Yea, those run me about 75.00 w/o HA and 150.00 with HA. Includes the steroid, and sedation, and whatever else she uses. | |
| | |
 Extreme Veteran
Posts: 422
Location: Fort Bragg North Carolina | Super easy to find research and scientific evidence on PEMF including articles by NASA, docs, vets. Lot and lots of studies done | |
| | |
Worlds Greatest Laugh
Location: North Dakota | charlenenh - 2018-05-18 9:25 AM Super easy to find research and scientific evidence on PEMF including articles by NASA, docs, vets. Lot and lots of studies done
Exposure to pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients--a pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.Abstract A pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to study the effect of exposure to pulsed magnetic fields (PMF) on the rate of healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients was undertaken. Twenty patients were randomly allocated to receive standard wound-care treatment (controls) and 20 others received standard treatment plus exposure to PMF (sinusoidal form, 0.95 to 1.05 Hz, amplitude +/- 2400 nano Teslas) (study group) for four weeks. Assessment of the outcome of treatment was based on the volume of ulcers, calculated from the maximal length, breadth and depth of the ulcer recorded on the day of admission, at one and two weeks and at the end of treatment. The analysis of the results was based on 15 control patients and 18 PMF patients after deletion of four patients due to irregularity in attendance and three others on account of suspected malignancy of the ulcers. In the control group, the geometric mean volumes of the ulcers were 2843 and 1478 cu mm on the day of admission and at the end of the treatment (P = 0.03); the corresponding values in the PMF group were 2428 and 337 cu mm, respectively (P < 0.001). A decrease in the volume of 40% or more was observed in 53% of control patients and 89% of PMF patients (P = 0.02); a decrease of 80% or more was observed in none of the controls and in 33% of PMF patients. These findings strongly suggest that exposure to PMF causes a significantly more rapid healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients.
Just an example of some of the things you can find in the NCBI regarding PEMF.
I am a HUGE skeptic of alternative therapies and believe a qualified, educated, seasoned veteranarian is an absolute necessity. I didnt buy into the static magnetic blankets, the "shake plates", and snake oil treatments. I am a believer in PEMF, however, due to my own personal experiences. | |
| | |
 Elite Veteran
Posts: 678
Location: Canada | So it helps to speed recovery - a warm wash, a good rub down, and a decent night rest does the same things - cost about $3.00 per "treatment".
Question then becomes are the horses better because we gave them a "treatment" or are they better because during that treatment we spent time with them in a relaxing atmosphere.
I know I can walk out to my pasture and the horses come up and I give them attention and scratches and they rest a leg, and lick and yawn and fall asleep. I'm not doing anything other then just being there in a place where they feel safe.
Another example - your child scrapes their knee and it's the end of the world until mom or dad gives it a kiss, a hug and wipes away that tear sending them on their way. Does the kiss have magical healing powers - no. It's a comfort that makes our children feel better. | |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | Runnincat - 2018-05-18 2:39 PM charlenenh - 2018-05-18 9:25 AM Super easy to find research and scientific evidence on PEMF including articles by NASA, docs, vets. Lot and lots of studies done Exposure to pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients--a pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
Abstract
A pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to study the effect of exposure to pulsed magnetic fields (PMF) on the rate of healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients was undertaken. Twenty patients were randomly allocated to receive standard wound-care treatment (controls) and 20 others received standard treatment plus exposure to PMF (sinusoidal form, 0.95 to 1.05 Hz, amplitude +/- 2400 nano Teslas) (study group) for four weeks. Assessment of the outcome of treatment was based on the volume of ulcers, calculated from the maximal length, breadth and depth of the ulcer recorded on the day of admission, at one and two weeks and at the end of treatment. The analysis of the results was based on 15 control patients and 18 PMF patients after deletion of four patients due to irregularity in attendance and three others on account of suspected malignancy of the ulcers. In the control group, the geometric mean volumes of the ulcers were 2843 and 1478 cu mm on the day of admission and at the end of the treatment (P = 0.03); the corresponding values in the PMF group were 2428 and 337 cu mm, respectively (P < 0.001). A decrease in the volume of 40% or more was observed in 53% of control patients and 89% of PMF patients (P = 0.02); a decrease of 80% or more was observed in none of the controls and in 33% of PMF patients. These findings strongly suggest that exposure to PMF causes a significantly more rapid healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients.
Just an example of some of the things you can find in the NCBI regarding PEMF.
I am a HUGE skeptic of alternative therapies and believe a qualified, educated, seasoned veteranarian is an absolute necessity. I didnt buy into the static magnetic blankets, the "shake plates", and snake oil treatments. I am a believer in PEMF, however, due to my own personal experiences.
Seriously?
| |
| | |
Worlds Greatest Laugh
Location: North Dakota | 1DSoon - 2018-05-18 4:47 PM Runnincat - 2018-05-18 2:39 PM charlenenh - 2018-05-18 9:25 AM Super easy to find research and scientific evidence on PEMF including articles by NASA, docs, vets. Lot and lots of studies done Exposure to pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients--a pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
Abstract
A pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to study the effect of exposure to pulsed magnetic fields (PMF) on the rate of healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients was undertaken. Twenty patients were randomly allocated to receive standard wound-care treatment (controls) and 20 others received standard treatment plus exposure to PMF (sinusoidal form, 0.95 to 1.05 Hz, amplitude +/- 2400 nano Teslas) (study group) for four weeks. Assessment of the outcome of treatment was based on the volume of ulcers, calculated from the maximal length, breadth and depth of the ulcer recorded on the day of admission, at one and two weeks and at the end of treatment. The analysis of the results was based on 15 control patients and 18 PMF patients after deletion of four patients due to irregularity in attendance and three others on account of suspected malignancy of the ulcers. In the control group, the geometric mean volumes of the ulcers were 2843 and 1478 cu mm on the day of admission and at the end of the treatment (P = 0.03); the corresponding values in the PMF group were 2428 and 337 cu mm, respectively (P < 0.001). A decrease in the volume of 40% or more was observed in 53% of control patients and 89% of PMF patients (P = 0.02); a decrease of 80% or more was observed in none of the controls and in 33% of PMF patients. These findings strongly suggest that exposure to PMF causes a significantly more rapid healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients.
Just an example of some of the things you can find in the NCBI regarding PEMF.
I am a HUGE skeptic of alternative therapies and believe a qualified, educated, seasoned veteranarian is an absolute necessity. I didnt buy into the static magnetic blankets, the "shake plates", and snake oil treatments. I am a believer in PEMF, however, due to my own personal experiences.
Oh sorry if that was a little over your head. I posted it only as an example of a study that went into the healing properties of ulcers. I am thinking on a cellular level and I should remember not everyone is versed. Seriously, there are more studies out there that would demonstrate effects of a PEMF that would be easier to relate too. Seriously pulsating electromagnetic fields do not have the same properties as static electromagnetic fields. Seriously they do not affect cells the same way. Again, my apologies if the correlation is a reach. | |
| | |
 BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | An abstract from an article published in the widely acclaimed “Madras Institute of Magnetobiology”, comparing the rate of healing in foot ulcers of patients with Leprosy.
I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that 99.999% of serious veterinary and human medical practitioners have never read or even heard heard of this journal. Secondly, if you are going to draw the conclusion that PEMF accelerates healing, why select foot ulcers in people with leprosy? Of the thousands of scientific journals to draw from you selected the one that rates right above the “Journal of Irreproducable Results”. The fact that someone goes through the trouble of posting this as the best scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy as a modality to promote healing speaks for itself.
The bottom line is that the scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy is, at best, tenuous.
For the average person contemplating investing thousands of dollars (or even $50) here are some quick ways of deciding quack issues are at play without having to attempt to wade through voluminous publications on the subject:
1. There is no reasonable modus operandi.
2. Failure to find widespread application by trained physicians or veterinarians.
3. Failure to be published in a major peer-review medical journal.
4. Reliance upon testimonials, including by scientists and physicians.
5. The results are contrary to a large body of experimental, published results.
6. Always ask yourself why someone is promoting one of these controversial, expensive devices. What is their motive?
7. If they are so good, why are so many used devices being sold for a fraction of their purchase price?
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | .
Attachments
----------------
 D6740DBB-7942-40F8-9027-C4C1F57BF592.jpeg (24KB - 261 downloads)
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 141
| Bear - 2018-05-18 6:13 PM
7. If they are so good, why are so many used devices being sold for a fraction of their purchase price?
Where are all these machines? | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Here’s an interesting little anecdote:
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/public-never-warned-about-... | |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | joemama - 2018-05-18 6:18 PM
Bear - 2018-05-18 6:13 PM
7. If they are so good, why are so many used devices being sold for a fraction of their purchase price?
Where are all these machines?
Why don’t you look and see for yourself. If you exhaust your efforts and still need help, I’ll see what I can do to assist you in your search. | |
| | |
Location: Not Where I Want to Be | Runnincat - 2018-05-18 6:45 PM 1DSoon - 2018-05-18 4:47 PM Runnincat - 2018-05-18 2:39 PM charlenenh - 2018-05-18 9:25 AM Super easy to find research and scientific evidence on PEMF including articles by NASA, docs, vets. Lot and lots of studies done Exposure to pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients--a pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
Abstract
A pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to study the effect of exposure to pulsed magnetic fields (PMF) on the rate of healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients was undertaken. Twenty patients were randomly allocated to receive standard wound-care treatment (controls) and 20 others received standard treatment plus exposure to PMF (sinusoidal form, 0.95 to 1.05 Hz, amplitude +/- 2400 nano Teslas) (study group) for four weeks. Assessment of the outcome of treatment was based on the volume of ulcers, calculated from the maximal length, breadth and depth of the ulcer recorded on the day of admission, at one and two weeks and at the end of treatment. The analysis of the results was based on 15 control patients and 18 PMF patients after deletion of four patients due to irregularity in attendance and three others on account of suspected malignancy of the ulcers. In the control group, the geometric mean volumes of the ulcers were 2843 and 1478 cu mm on the day of admission and at the end of the treatment (P = 0.03); the corresponding values in the PMF group were 2428 and 337 cu mm, respectively (P < 0.001). A decrease in the volume of 40% or more was observed in 53% of control patients and 89% of PMF patients (P = 0.02); a decrease of 80% or more was observed in none of the controls and in 33% of PMF patients. These findings strongly suggest that exposure to PMF causes a significantly more rapid healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients.
Just an example of some of the things you can find in the NCBI regarding PEMF.
I am a HUGE skeptic of alternative therapies and believe a qualified, educated, seasoned veteranarian is an absolute necessity. I didnt buy into the static magnetic blankets, the "shake plates", and snake oil treatments. I am a believer in PEMF, however, due to my own personal experiences.
Madras Institute of Magnetobiology.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Anyone here remember the movie “Midnight Express”?
This scene comes to mind when I think of these “machines”.
https://youtu.be/Lu0_eFc92Hc | |
| | |
Worlds Greatest Laugh
Location: North Dakota | Bear - 2018-05-18 6:13 PM An abstract from an article published in the widely acclaimed “Madras Institute of Magnetobiology”, comparing the rate of healing in foot ulcers of patients with Leprosy. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that 99.999% of serious veterinary and human medical practitioners have never read or even heard heard of this journal. Secondly, if you are going to draw the conclusion that PEMF accelerates healing, why select foot ulcers in people with leprosy? Of the thousands of scientific journals to draw from you selected the one that rates right above the “Journal of Irreproducable Results”. The fact that someone goes through the trouble of posting this as the best scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy as a modality to promote healing speaks for itself. The bottom line is that the scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy is, at best, tenuous. For the average person contemplating investing thousands of dollars (or even $50) here are some quick ways of deciding quack issues are at play without having to attempt to wade through voluminous publications on the subject: 1. There is no reasonable modus operandi. 2. Failure to find widespread application by trained physicians or veterinarians. 3. Failure to be published in a major peer-review medical journal. 4. Reliance upon testimonials, including by scientists and physicians. 5. The results are contrary to a large body of experimental, published results. 6. Always ask yourself why someone is promoting one of these controversial, expensive devices. What is their motive? 7. If they are so good, why are so many used devices being sold for a fraction of their purchase price?
FIrst off, I found the study on the NCBI, which I used as an example of different studies out there. There are thousands out there so I suppose I could search through and find something that was done by a more accredited organization. Let me see....just off the top of my head Roger Stupp, MD Professor of Neurologic Surgery, Neurology and Oncology at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Chicago. I dont know what study he was published under but you may want to look that up. There are many published articles out there but I believe Roger Stupp, MD refers to it as "out of the box" type therapy. So with that I believe you are correct in your description of what you say it doesnt meet.
Secondly, I didnt say I supported the devices, in fact, I said that I didnt know if the devices actually worked on horses. I dont know that. But it is something I am more open to believing other than a shake plate or static magnets. That is what I said.
Thirdly, I believe that pulsating magnetic fields do have some sort of effect at a cellular level where as the static magnets do not. Basically because of how a pulsating magnetic field works.
I cannot argue or debate the coils, the blankets, the wraps, etc. I do not know. But my stance would be pulsating magnetic fields have an effect on cellular function. Now whether you want to call it healing, pain relief, whatever, that is fine. And if you want to stand on the fact that different studies do not meet the medical requirements to be "in the box", then okay, I can see that from a medical stand point.
We are getting lost in the equipment, which I said I didnt know....we are getting lost in a blanket that they sell for lots of money...which I said I didnt know. So let me get this straight... you do not believe a pulsating magnetic field has any bearing on cellular function??? So basically I believe in stupid studies that are contrary to large body of evidence.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Runnincat - 2018-05-18 5:45 PM
1DSoon - 2018-05-18 4:47 PM Runnincat - 2018-05-18 2:39 PM charlenenh - 2018-05-18 9:25 AM Super easy to find research and scientific evidence on PEMF including articles by NASA, docs, vets. Lot and lots of studies done  Exposure to pulsed magnetic fields in the treatment of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients--a pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial.
Abstract
A pilot, randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial to study the effect of exposure to pulsed magnetic fields (PMF) on the rate of healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients was undertaken. Twenty patients were randomly allocated to receive standard wound-care treatment (controls) and 20 others received standard treatment plus exposure to PMF (sinusoidal form, 0.95 to 1.05 Hz, amplitude +/- 2400 nano Teslas) (study group) for four weeks. Assessment of the outcome of treatment was based on the volume of ulcers, calculated from the maximal length, breadth and depth of the ulcer recorded on the day of admission, at one and two weeks and at the end of treatment. The analysis of the results was based on 15 control patients and 18 PMF patients after deletion of four patients due to irregularity in attendance and three others on account of suspected malignancy of the ulcers. In the control group, the geometric mean volumes of the ulcers were 2843 and 1478 cu mm on the day of admission and at the end of the treatment (P = 0.03); the corresponding values in the PMF group were 2428 and 337 cu mm, respectively (P < 0.001). A decrease in the volume of 40% or more was observed in 53% of control patients and 89% of PMF patients (P = 0.02); a decrease of 80% or more was observed in none of the controls and in 33% of PMF patients. These findings strongly suggest that exposure to PMF causes a significantly more rapid healing of plantar ulcers in leprosy patients.
Just an example of some of the things you can find in the NCBI regarding PEMF.Â
I am a HUGE skeptic of alternative therapies and believe a qualified, educated, seasoned veteranarian is an absolute necessity. I didnt buy into the static magnetic blankets, the "shake plates", and snake oil treatments. I am a believer in PEMF, however, due to my own personal experiences.
Â
You are invoking a logical fallacy.
Correlation does not imply causation. It’s a very important fundamental tenet in science.
| |
| | |
BHW Resident Surgeon
Posts: 25351
Location: Bastrop, Texas | Runnincat - 2018-05-18 6:50 PM
Bear - 2018-05-18 6:13 PM An abstract from an article published in the widely acclaimed “Madras Institute of Magnetobiology”, comparing the rate of healing in foot ulcers of patients with Leprosy. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that 99.999% of serious veterinary and human medical practitioners have never read or even heard heard of this journal. Secondly, if you are going to draw the conclusion that PEMF accelerates healing, why select foot ulcers in people with leprosy? Of the thousands of scientific journals to draw from you selected the one that rates right above the “Journal of Irreproducable Results”. The fact that someone goes through the trouble of posting this as the best scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy as a modality to promote healing speaks for itself. The bottom line is that the scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy is, at best, tenuous. For the average person contemplating investing thousands of dollars (or even $50) here are some quick ways of deciding quack issues are at play without having to attempt to wade through voluminous publications on the subject: 1. There is no reasonable modus operandi. 2. Failure to find widespread application by trained physicians or veterinarians. 3. Failure to be published in a major peer-review medical journal. 4. Reliance upon testimonials, including by scientists and physicians. 5. The results are contrary to a large body of experimental, published results. 6. Always ask yourself why someone is promoting one of these controversial, expensive devices. What is their motive? 7. If they are so good, why are so many used devices being sold for a fraction of their purchase price?
FIrst off, I found the study on the NCBI, which I used as an example of different studies out there.  There are thousands out there so I suppose I could search through and find something that was done by a more accredited organization. Let me see....just off the top of my head Roger Stupp, MD Professor of Neurologic Surgery, Neurology and Oncology at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Chicago. I dont know what study he was published under but you may want to look that up.   There are many published articles out there but I believe Roger Stupp, MD refers to it as "out of the box" type therapy.  So with that I believe you are correct in your description of what you say it doesnt meet.Â
Secondly, I didnt say I supported the devices, in fact, I said that I didnt know if the devices actually worked on horses. I dont know that. But it is something I am more open to believing other than a shake plate or static magnets. That is what I said.
Thirdly, I believe that pulsating magnetic fields do have some sort of effect at a cellular level where as the static magnets do not.  Basically because of how a pulsating magnetic field works. Â
I cannot argue or debate the coils, the blankets, the wraps, etc.  I do not know. But my stance would be pulsating magnetic fields have an effect on cellular function. Now whether you want to call it healing, pain relief, whatever, that is fine. And if you want to stand on the fact that different studies do not meet the medical requirements to be "in the box", then okay, I can see that from a medical stand point.
We are getting lost in the equipment, which I said I didnt know....we are getting lost in a blanket that they sell for lots of money...which I said I didnt know.  So let me get this straight... you do not believe a pulsating magnetic field has any bearing on cellular function??? So basically I believe in stupid studies that are contrary to large body of evidence.
Â
Again, and think about this:
“Correlation does not imply causation”.
Unless you have an unlimited budget, I would recommend staying “within the box”. Leave the “outside of the box” modalities for fools to squander their money. | |
| | |
Worlds Greatest Laugh
Location: North Dakota | Bear - 2018-05-18 6:59 PM Runnincat - 2018-05-18 6:50 PM Bear - 2018-05-18 6:13 PM An abstract from an article published in the widely acclaimed “Madras Institute of Magnetobiology”, comparing the rate of healing in foot ulcers of patients with Leprosy. I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that 99.999% of serious veterinary and human medical practitioners have never read or even heard heard of this journal. Secondly, if you are going to draw the conclusion that PEMF accelerates healing, why select foot ulcers in people with leprosy? Of the thousands of scientific journals to draw from you selected the one that rates right above the “Journal of Irreproducable Results”. The fact that someone goes through the trouble of posting this as the best scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy as a modality to promote healing speaks for itself. The bottom line is that the scientific evidence in support of PEMF therapy is, at best, tenuous. For the average person contemplating investing thousands of dollars (or even $50) here are some quick ways of deciding quack issues are at play without having to attempt to wade through voluminous publications on the subject: 1. There is no reasonable modus operandi. 2. Failure to find widespread application by trained physicians or veterinarians. 3. Failure to be published in a major peer-review medical journal. 4. Reliance upon testimonials, including by scientists and physicians. 5. The results are contrary to a large body of experimental, published results. 6. Always ask yourself why someone is promoting one of these controversial, expensive devices. What is their motive? 7. If they are so good, why are so many used devices being sold for a fraction of their purchase price? FIrst off, I found the study on the NCBI, which I used as an example of different studies out there. There are thousands out there so I suppose I could search through and find something that was done by a more accredited organization. Let me see....just off the top of my head Roger Stupp, MD Professor of Neurologic Surgery, Neurology and Oncology at Feinberg School of Medicine, Northwestern University Chicago. I dont know what study he was published under but you may want to look that up. There are many published articles out there but I believe Roger Stupp, MD refers to it as "out of the box" type therapy. So with that I believe you are correct in your description of what you say it doesnt meet.
Secondly, I didnt say I supported the devices, in fact, I said that I didnt know if the devices actually worked on horses. I dont know that. But it is something I am more open to believing other than a shake plate or static magnets. That is what I said.
Thirdly, I believe that pulsating magnetic fields do have some sort of effect at a cellular level where as the static magnets do not. Basically because of how a pulsating magnetic field works.
I cannot argue or debate the coils, the blankets, the wraps, etc. I do not know. But my stance would be pulsating magnetic fields have an effect on cellular function. Now whether you want to call it healing, pain relief, whatever, that is fine. And if you want to stand on the fact that different studies do not meet the medical requirements to be "in the box", then okay, I can see that from a medical stand point.
We are getting lost in the equipment, which I said I didnt know....we are getting lost in a blanket that they sell for lots of money...which I said I didnt know. So let me get this straight... you do not believe a pulsating magnetic field has any bearing on cellular function??? So basically I believe in stupid studies that are contrary to large body of evidence.
Again, and think about this: “Correlation does not imply causation”. Unless you have an unlimited budget, I would recommend staying “within the box”. Leave the “outside of the box” modalities for fools to squander their money.
Before I sign off and go outside to get some work done I will leave it at this:
I believe that pulsating magnetic fields have an effect at a cellular level. I believe it so much that I think those operating the MagnaWave should be properly trained. PEMF should not replace proper veterinary care. (Which I stated above). Thats it. I cannot say there is alot of PEMF equipment out there for sale...I havent seen any. I do not have PEMF performed on my horse. I just dont know but I might buy a session and try it.
My only belief (from a medical view) is that a pulsating magnetic field has an effect on a cellular level.
Edited by Runnincat 2018-05-18 7:08 PM
| |
| | |
Veteran
Posts: 141
| Its easy to spot the people that dont believe in God...  | |
| |
| |
Folks on-line