Advanced Search

Home > Journals > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche > Past Issues > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2001 February;160(1) > Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2001 February;160(1):9-29

ISSUES AND ARTICLES   MOST READ

CURRENT ISSUEGAZZETTA MEDICA ITALIANA ARCHIVIO PER LE SCIENZE MEDICHE

A Journal on Internal Medicine and Pharmacology

Indexed/Abstracted in: BIOSIS Previews, EMBASE, Scopus, Emerging Sources Citation Index

Frequency: Monthly

ISSN 0393-3660

Online ISSN 1827-1812

 

Gazzetta Medica Italiana Archivio per le Scienze Mediche 2001 February;160(1):9-29

    ORIGINAL ARTICLES

Pico Tesla range magnetic fields tested in four site, double blind clinical study for treatment of osteoarthritic knees

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.

language: English


FULL TEXT  REPRINTS

top of page