Total amount: € 0,00
Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index
Online ISSN 1827-1812
Jacobson J. I. 1, 2, 6, Gorman R. 1, Chaviano F. 1, Yamanashi W. S. 2, Grinberg I. 3, Dayton M. 4, Haltiwanger S. 5, Saxwna B. B. 6, Walters B. 7, Clayton L. 8, Lamberth J. 9
1 Departmet of Medical Physics and Neuromagnetics, Institute of Theoretical Physics and Advanced Studies for Biophysical Research, The Perspectivism Foundation, Boca Raton, FL USA;
2 Department of Medicine, Cardiovascular Section, University of Oklahoma Health Sciences Center, VA Medical Center, Oklahoma City, OK, USA;
3 West Gables Rehabilitation Outpatient, Center Hospital, Coral Gables, FL, USA;
4 Dayton Medical Center, Miami, FL, USA;
5 Emanuel Medical Center, Roswell, GA, USA;
6 Department of Obstetrics/Gynecology, Division of Reproductive Endocrinology, Cornell University Medical College, New York, NY, USA;
7 Outcomes Analysis Corporation, Dania Beach, FL, USA;
8 Prototyping Laboratory, John C. Stennis Space Center, Boca Raton, MS, USA;
9 Mississippi State University
Background. The objective of this study was to determine the efficacy of Jacobson Resonance Magnetic Fields on human subjects suffering with knee pain secondary to osteoarthritis.
Methods. One hundred seventy-six patients pooled from four sites completed the study. The subjects were randomly assigned to one of two groups, the placebo group (magnet off) or the active group (magnet on). Each group received eight treatments over a two-week period. Each subject rated his or her pain level from one minimal to ten maximal before and after each treatment session on three separate instances; before treatment trials, during the treatment trials, and two weeks after treatment had terminated. Subjects recorded their pain intensity while out of the treatment environment. The magnetic fields used in this study were generated by Jacobson’s Magnetic Resonance Device, which consists of two 18-inch diameter coils of 30 gauge copper wire connected in series (Helmholtz configuration), placed 9 inches apart. The coils were connected to a power supply e.g. HP3325A function generator, and an attenuator to obtain the desired field in the space between the coils. The magnetic field strengths (flux densities) were calculated from the equation MC2=BvLq (Jacobson’s Equation). The range of flux densities utilized was from 2.74×10-7 gauss to 3.4×10-8 gauss with corresponding frequencies 7.7 Hertz to 0.976 Hertz. While picoTesla range flux densities have been measured to be associated with brain waves and the heart by David Cohen of M.I.T. there exists no classical physical explanation for weak field bioeffects. Jacobson Resonance proposes a mechanism, to resolve the theoretical difficulties.
Results. On average, subjects in the magnet “on” group perceived a 46% reduction in pain after a treatment session. On average, subjects in the magnet “off” group perceived an 8% reduction in pain after a treatment session. The results show that there is a significant difference between the two groups. A two-way ANOVA (GLM) of the treatment and session showed that the reduction in pain was significantly greater in the magnet “on” group (p<0.001) than the magnet “off” group. Additionally, of the 101 magnet “on” patients evaluated in the treatment sessions, 96% received statistically significant (p<0.000) reductions in pain levels. The N=97 (96%) patients who experienced a reduction in pain had on average a 53.25 percent reduction in pain. One hundred 100% of the patients in the magnet “on” group received a reduction in pain levels because of at least one or more treatments with the resonator.
Conclusions. This study indicates that the prediction of Jacobson Resonance regarding the possibility that pico Tesla range magnetic fields are physiologic must be considered. The results of the study point to a subtlety of life that has yet to be fully appreciated and contemplated.