The Power of Magnets to heal - my personal story...

originally posted by: MystikMushroom
Earth has a magnetic field.

Cell phones, computers, televisions, wifi...all of that technology emits electromagnetic radiation.

Anyway, look into astaxanthin, its natural:

Thanks! I've known about it for some time, but maybe overlooked how effective it can be.

Do you use it yourself? Any anecdotes to tell about how it has benefited you personally?

Also, knowing that the brand can make all the difference, what, if any, brand do you take and how much?

Thanks again, have bookmarked this for further research...

originally posted by: AgarthaScience is far from perfect, I have personally said that a million times on this forum, but a real scientific study can actually show if something works or it doesn't,

Yes, and a real scientific study can also be manipulated to falsely show that something works when it doesn't - or doesn't work, when it does.

originally posted by: LonelyWolf
Dear tanstaafl,

Could you please let me know which kit of magnets you're using or used

Answered here.

and let me know if there are any guidelines as to treating a depression with these. I know about Transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS), but maybe there are more simple methods to apply.
Thank you!

I don't have my book that came with the kit handy, and don't recall anything specifically about depression, but one thing that I know has helped a lot of people is large doses of L-Trytophan...

Also, I recall something - let me check - yes, something that probably works the same way as the patented/very expensive TMS is using a simple (you can even build them yourself) magnetic pulser, like this one from SOTA Instruments. I have an old Silver Pulser I use to make my own colloidal silver, had it for over 15 years and it is still going strong.

originally posted by: anton74
Your silly magnets are a $5 billion dollar a year business so, stop pretending there is no money in it.

Troll, much, do you? Your comment is not only snide & disrespectful, it is a lie.

When did I ever say there was 'no money in it'? I said they were not PATENTABLE, therefore they weren't candidates for the obscene profits required for the big pharmaceutical companies to get involved.

I've had chronic back pain for seven years and ain't drinking your kool-aid.

Yes, sadly, you have relegated yourself to be among many millions of people who will never benefit from things that aren't prescribed by their doctor or covered by government welfare. You have my sympathy.

I had one episode that lasted over a month. On my way to a party I slipped and fell on some ice covered stairs. One stair hit me right where the bulging disk is. When I stood up and the pain was gone, do you think falling on the stairs cured me?

Depends on your definition of 'cured'. I'd say it worked in the same way as Chiropractic - it was essentially an accidental 'manipulation' that pushed something back into place - albeit, like chiropractic, probably only temporarily.

originally posted by: AgarthaThere is no 'why' per se, it's all done automatically simply because the reproductive cells exist to do just that,

They 'exist to do just that'? How, exactly, does this answer fulfill your requirement to fully explain how/why something works?

First of all if you cannot explain how something works then you shouldn't trust it,

Neither the existence or non-existence of an 'explanation' of 'how' or 'why' changes reality.

The earth was revolving around the sun the entire time the scientific community claimed otherwise, regardless of explanations. It was still revolving around the sun even after it was admitted to be the case but before there was an explanation of 'how' or 'why'. By your argument, you would have remained in the camp of 'the sun revolves around the earth' until Einstein & Newton came along to explain things to your satisfaction.

I encourage all patients to find out exactly how their treatments work.

Good recommendation.

So, please explain just how and why 5-25% of pancreatic cancer patients survive, while the rest die. Why do certain treatments work for some, but not others?

Second, sometimes choosing alternative treatments that have no evidence of being effective, instead of seeking real ones, have killed people,

And quite often, choosing modern treatments for cancer have killed more people than they have cured - or are you unaware that most people who go on the books of having died of cancer, actually died from the treatments or complications therefrom?

Are you also unaware that under todays paradigm, if someone dies of cancer 5 years and one day after they are diagnosed, they are still included in the 'cured' statistics? Talk about a rigged system...

this is just one sad example: www.abovetopsecret.com...

That child could have survived if it wasn't for his parents ignorance and selfishness.

Probably, and I agree that in this case the parents were negligent. While meningitis is sometimes still fatal even when treated, the risk of treatment (low) and the benefit (high success rate) far outweighs the risk of non-treatment (high mortality rate).

As I have repeatedly said, I am not 'anti-science'. I guess, though, you could say I'm anti BAD science, and there's lots of it out there.

Steve Jobs is another example.

Really? You're sure about that?

You do know that the survival rate from pancreatic cancer is... well, pretty bad?

So, there is actually a fairly low chance that 'modern' cancer treatments would have cured Steve.

I'm obviously not talking about magnets or crystals as they do not cause any physiological changes in our bodies.

Again with the blanket dismissal in spite of the fact that there is at least some 'modern' scientific evidence they do in fact do 'something', maybe just not the same ironclad evidence as, say, one of the numerous pharmaceutical drugs previously shown to be 'safe and effective' that were later shown to be very unsafe and/or ineffective?

originally posted by: tanstaafl
Yes, and a real scientific study can also be manipulated to falsely show that something works when it doesn't - or doesn't work, when it does.

Such as? Please be more specific.

They 'exist to do just that'? How, exactly, does this answer fulfill your requirement to fully explain how/why something works?
Neither the existence or non-existence of an 'explanation' of 'how' or 'why' changes reality.

We know the 'how' and actually the 'why' could be what I've said, each cell has a purpose and it lives to fulfil that purpose. Reproductive cells have been created to reproduce, so when fertilization occur and a zygote is created, its cells are stimulated by the release of hormones to keep on dividing. They do so because they have been created for that specific job (created by the body). Isn't this a satisfactory explanation to you? I understand the process, so it is to me.

The earth was revolving around the sun the entire time the scientific community claimed otherwise, regardless of explanations. It was still revolving around the sun even after it was admitted to be the case but before there was an explanation of 'how' or 'why'. By your argument, you would have remained in the camp of 'the sun revolves around the earth' until Einstein & Newton came along to explain things to your satisfaction.

What a silly comment. You can't compare the standards of scientific evidence we request now to the ones in medioeval times when Copernicus confirmed the Earth revolves around the sun.

So, please explain just how and why 5-25% of pancreatic cancer patients survive, while the rest die. Why do certain treatments work for some, but not others?

With pancreatic cancer is all about time of diagnosis and unfortunately this specific type of cancer sometimes remain undiagnosed until it's too late, because its symptoms are vague or absent. Those who are diagnosed early are the ones that survive. Unfortunately for most, by the time pancreatic cancer has been diagnosed, it has already spread to other organs. It's not about the treatment working for some and not for others, it's about whether the cancer it's still contained in the pancreas and it has not spread.

And quite often, choosing modern treatments for cancer have killed more people than they have cured - or are you unaware that most people who go on the books of having died of cancer, actually died from the treatments or complications therefrom?

Please post some evidence for your statement.

Really? You're sure about that?
You do know that the survival rate from pancreatic cancer is... well, pretty bad?
So, there is actually a fairly low chance that 'modern' cancer treatments would have cured Steve.

Unfortunately Steve Jobs spent almost a year trying to cure his cancer with alternative medicine, and by the time he decided to have conventional treatments it was too late, as the cancer had spread. You can't say whether the chance was low or high, we can only say he decreased his chances of surviving by not having surgery. He did infact say he regretted not having a proper treatment immediately.

Again with the blanket dismissal in spite of the fact that there is at least some 'modern' scientific evidence they do in fact do 'something'

Ok, post them and I'll discuss them, and if you have already I apologised as I have missed them.

originally posted by: Agartha
I said:
Yes, and a real scientific study can also be manipulated to falsely show that something works when it doesn't - or doesn't work, when it does.

You responded:
Such as? Please be more specific.

It took me all of 30 seconds to find this study entitled How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research on google - although, I find it highly amusing and ironic that this is an actual 'scientific study' undertaken to answer the question.

There is much more evidence, but I'll leave that as an exercise for those truly interested (obviously you aren't).

I said:
They 'exist to do just that'? How, exactly, does this answer fulfill your requirement to fully explain how/why something works? Neither the existence or non-existence of an 'explanation' of 'how' or 'why' changes reality.

You said:
We know the 'how' and actually the 'why' could be what I've said,

Could be? Not very scientific - but of course, it only matters when you want it to.

each cell has a purpose and it lives to fulfil that purpose.

According to what rule or standard?

Reproductive cells have been created

By whom - or what?

If you can't answer that, then according to your own standard, you cannot believe it until you can answer it definitely, especially not unless/until it is proven by a PCRDB study.

to reproduce, so when fertilization occur and a zygote is created, its cells are stimulated by the release of hormones to keep on dividing.

Why?

They do so because they have been created for that specific job (created by the body).

And who (or what) created the body in the first place, and then defined these roles, and then provided for the mechanisms for these mysterious actions you are describing?

Isn't this a satisfactory explanation to you? I understand the process, so it is to me.

Of course it is, for me. But I'm wondering why it is for you, since it doesn't meet the exact same standard you are demanding for anything that falls outside your comfort zone.

I said:
The earth was revolving around the sun the entire time the scientific community claimed otherwise, regardless of explanations. It was still revolving around the sun even after it was admitted to be the case but before there was an explanation of 'how' or 'why'. By your argument, you would have remained in the camp of 'the sun revolves around the earth' until Einstein & Newton came along to explain things to your satisfaction.

You replied:
What a silly comment. You can't compare the standards of scientific evidence we request now to the ones in medioeval times when Copernicus confirmed the Earth revolves around the sun.

Sure I can - I just did in fact.

But this just illustrates my point: in a thousand years, they will laugh at and ridicule your so called 'rigorous standards', just as you do those of a thousand years ago.

I said:
So, please explain just how and why 5-25% of pancreatic cancer patients survive, while the rest die. Why do certain treatments work for some, but not others?

You replied:
With pancreatic cancer is all about time of diagnosis and unfortunately this specific type of cancer sometimes remain undiagnosed until it's too late, because its symptoms are vague or absent. Those who are diagnosed early are the ones that survive. Unfortunately for most, by the time pancreatic cancer has been diagnosed, it has already spread to other organs. It's not about the treatment working for some and not for others, it's about whether the cancer it's still contained in the pancreas and it has not spread.

Really? According to the link I provided earlier:

"Survival Rates
According to the American Cancer Society, for all stages of pancreatic cancer combined, the one-year relative survival rate is 20%, and the five-year rate is 6%."

Here is the link again.

This specifically contradicts your claim, and like I said - it is a pretty lousy success rate.

I said:
And quite often, choosing modern treatments for cancer have killed more people than they have cured - or are you unaware that most people who go on the books of having died of cancer, actually died from the treatments or complications therefrom?

You replied:
Please post some evidence for your statement.

I'm getting tired of doing your work for you...

Here is one link... google for others.

I said:
You do know that the survival rate from pancreatic cancer is... well, pretty bad?
So, there is actually a fairly low chance that 'modern' cancer treatments would have cured Steve.

You replied:
Unfortunately Steve Jobs spent almost a year trying to cure his cancer with alternative medicine,

Really? The only thing I can find about anything even remotely 'alternative' that he did was a trip to Switzerland for a treatment not approved in the USA yet, something called peptide receptor radionuclide therapy (PRRT), which, according to the linked article:

"... involves delivering radiation to tumor cells by attaching one of two radioactive isotopes to a drug that mimics somatostatin, the hormone that regulates the entire endocrine system and the secretion of other hormones." ...

Doesn't sound all that 'alternative' to me...

and by the time he decided to have conventional treatments it was too late, as the cancer had spread.

Apparently you really just don't have a freakin clue of what you're talking about with respect to Steve's battle with cancer...

You can't say whether the chance was low or high,

Actually, I can, and I'm not the only one (see previous links).

we can only say he decreased his chances of surviving by not having surgery.

As I said, you don't have a clue, because as the prior link shows, he did in fact have surgery right after he was first diagnosed in 2004.

He did infact say he regretted not having a proper treatment immediately.

You can say anything you like, but that doesn't make it true. Regardless, anyone who makes a choice that doesn't work out will always look back and wonder what they might have done differently.

In fact, according to the prior link, apparently many doctors believe it is much more likely it was the immunosupressants that he had to take after the very risky liver transplant that he underwent just 2 years before he died that ultimately caused his death.

originally posted by: tanstaafl
It took me all of 30 seconds to find this study entitled How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research on google - although, I find it highly amusing and ironic that this is an actual 'scientific study' undertaken to answer the question.

Well done to Dr Fanelli for such literature review, as it has highlighted that 2% of scientists do fake data. I am not surprised, scientists are people too and not all of them are honest. Luckily for us, before anything this scientists have discovered is released to the public, they have to go through replication several times by other scientists, which is why I believe in science, as it is continually analyzed by third parties. I'm glad Dr Fanelli made it public, as now the scientific community has begun to consider solutions. That's the beauty of science: it doesn't mind being challenged as it gets better when it is.
www.popsci.com...

Reproductive cells have been created
By whom - or what?

Created by the body.

If you can't answer that, then according to your own standard, you cannot believe it until you can answer it definitely, especially not unless/until it is proven by a PCRDB study.

I just did.

And who (or what) created the body in the first place, and then defined these roles, and then provided for the mechanisms for these mysterious actions you are describing?

.

Evolution. Should I explain what that is, and don't fret, it is not mysterious.

Of course it is, for me. But I'm wondering why it is for you, since it doesn't meet the exact same standard you are demanding for anything that falls outside your comfort zone.

You are spending so much time talking about me and other stuff and are yet to show me any evidence about your magnets working.

Sure I can - I just did in fact.

LOL it's like talking with my teenage son!

But this just illustrates my point: in a thousand years, they will laugh at and ridicule your so called 'rigorous standards', just as you do those of a thousand years ago.

Ah, we can also predict the future now, eh?
lol

Really? According to the link I provided earlier:
"Survival Rates According to the American Cancer Society, for all stages of pancreatic cancer combined, the one-year relative survival rate is 20%, and the five-year rate is 6%."

Funny how your own link back up what I said. Here:

These low survival rates are attributable to the fact that fewer than 20% of patients' tumors are confined to the pancreas at the time of diagnosis; in most cases, the malignancy has already progressed to the point where surgical removal is impossible.

This specifically contradicts your claim, and like I said - it is a pretty lousy success rate.

Nope, it backs up my statement, read again: only a small proportion of pancreatic cancers are diagnosed early whilst still in the pancreas (have not metastasized to the rest of the body). This is why you should leave the promotion of medical treatments for those who understand what they are talking about.

I'm getting tired of doing your work for you...
Here is one link... google for others.

The Daily Mail? You are joking, right? The Daily Mail is a tabloid newspaper that reports rubbish all the time. And even if it was serious, why should we believe one man who claims to be a doctor? I am not that gullible.

You can say anything you like, but that doesn't make it true.

It's not me saying it, it's his own autobiography:
[url=http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/apple/8841347/Steve-Jobs-regretted-trying-to-beat-cancer-with-alternative-medicine-for-so-long.html]LINK[/u rl]

Now what about going back to your magnetic cure? Shouldn't we be discussing that?

originally posted by: Bedlam

originally posted by: UniFinity

I see no value for testing by old or current materialistic methods based on our five senses, when they want to detect a bit more subtle forces...

I generally interpret "subtle forces" as "pure woo". The issue is, you can't detect it, you can't measure it, you can't quantify it. If you can't positively tell if it's there or not, nor how you're affecting it if it IS there, you can't say what if anything you're doing to something that may or may not be there.

"Materialistic methods" use a lot more than five senses.

I know Reiki is a real thing from regular meditation, but it is a new age concept, taken from old systems.

Sadly, repeated testing shows if you send in someone who says "I'm going to give you a Reiki treatment" and just waves their hands around and goes "ommm" you get exactly, EXACTLY the same effect that a "Reiki master" gets.

That generally means Reiki is a new word for "bullcookies".

well I am not the only one, there are many people who had some effect or experience from things you mentioned.

Confirmation bias is a powerful thing to beings with stochastic processing systems and senses.

Although I do not KNOW about magnets working I will state this and invoke a higher knowledge base regarding "pure woo" that you say this all is.

In Thiaoouba it says "The people managed to develop their psychic abilities enormously. Many were able to travel short distances by means of levitation, and telepathy resumed its significance in their lives, becoming commonplace. There were also frequent instances of physical ailments being cured by the laying on of hands."

You must not think that the Higher Self of the first category is insignificant in comparison with the others. It functions at a lower level, but is nevertheless extremely powerful and important. It is capable of curing illness and even resuscitating the dead.What is known on Earth as Spiritual Healing, can be achieved with the help of the Higher Self of the healer, without the patient even being present. However, providing the patient gives permission, the competent healer can assist the patient from anywhere in the world. This is not an exchange of energy but exchange of information at the level of Higher Selves.

"There are many instances of people, declared clinically dead, who are brought back to life in the hands of doctors who had abandoned all hope for them. What generally happens in these cases, is that the persons Astral body meets with the Higher Self. This portion of the Higher Self has left the physical body during the period of death. It perceives its physical body below, and the doctors trying to resuscitate it; it can also perceive loved ones who mourn for it. In his present state, the Astral body, the person will feel perfectly well - even blissful. Usually he abandons his physical body, frequently the source of much suffering, to find himself catapulted down a psychic canal, at the end of which is a wondrous light and beyond, a state of bliss."~ The Angel Thoa in Abduction to the 9th Planet/ The Thiaoouba Prophecy by Michel Desmarquet

By Higher Self The People from the Planet Thiaoouba mean themselves. Since we are them and they are us split down to this level of Kindergarten. We are the 'self' they are the Self with a capital letter since they are our "Guardian Angels" if you prefer that word over the Eastern word of Self/self.

I could tell you about the powers that my Two Uncles have both of which have not finished their Shaolin Monk Kung-Fu Training and its been 40+ years, but you wouldn't even begin to believe because you don't want to even aim to understand.

a reply to: Thiaoouba Prophecy

I've no doubt you and tanstaafl will get along quite nicely.

originally posted by: tanstaafl

I've had chronic back pain for seven years and ain't drinking your kool-aid.

Yes, sadly, you have relegated yourself to be among many millions of people who will never benefit from things that aren't prescribed by their doctor or covered by government welfare. You have my sympathy.

Not really they told me to understand what has happened and learn how to deal with it. I'm doing good and don't need anyone's help to get through the day.

I'll troll as long as people like you try to push nonsense cures onto others. All they really need(in many cases) is a positive attitude.

Million dollar race horses to ranch horses, you will find the use of magnets. "Magnetic hock boots" and similar items have been around a long time.

You might fool the new age hopeful but you are not going to fool a rancher. They know it helps, don't care why, and that's good enough.

originally posted by: staple
Million dollar race horses to ranch horses, you will find the use of magnets. "Magnetic hock boots" and similar items have been around a long time.

You might fool the new age hopeful but you are not going to fool a rancher. They know it helps, don't care why, and that's good enough.

I know they are used, my friend have horses but, just like with people, no studies have confirmed they work. My friend knows that but she still uses them as animals respond to placebo by proxy too.

a reply to: staple

Just like those million dollar athletes who use magnetic "balancing bracelets" that are utter twaddle?

originally posted by: staple
You might fool the new age hopeful but you are not going to fool a rancher. They know it helps, don't care why, and that's good enough.

Except for two things - the "clever Hans" syndrome, and the fact that the rancher is doing a subjective evaluation of what he/she THINKS the horse is feeling.

If the rancher didn't know which blanket had magnets and which did not, it would be interesting to see if it was so obvious what helped and what did not. With people, it's pretty much random chance. Like Reiki. That's why reputable studies are double blinded.

a reply to: Agartha

Can you explain the Placebo/Nocebo effect? Why does belief have so much to do with healing the body?
That would be much appreciated.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
Can you explain the Placebo/Nocebo effect? Why does belief have so much to do with healing the body?
That would be much appreciated.

I'll try my best. When a patient believes a treatment will work, somehow this positive thinking helps them improve their condition. This also happens when the treatment is not real, when they are given a 'fake' cure (unbeknown to them) and this fake cure causes an improvement (which it really shouldn't). This is the placebo effect.

It obviously doesn't work for very serious conditions like cancer, degenerative diseases etc. But it works wonders with pain, for example, and scientists are finally testing the placebo effect to see if they can confirm what testimonials of both laymen and professionals are suggesting.

I leave this link here to the NHS, the National Health Service in the UK, which explains the placebo effect much better than me, and you'll also find links to studies. LINK- NHS UK

Hope this helps.

a reply to: Agartha

That was more of a definition than an explanation, but thanks anyway, I've checked out what that NHS link has to say about the matter. But I wonder how many ailments are just psychosomatic, which the placebo effect would be a most obvious cure of, and how many non psychosomatic illness's the placebo effect has worked on, if any?

I will see what I can find any info myself, but had no luck on a previous search.

originally posted by: surfer_soul
a reply to: Agartha

That was more of a definition than an explanation, but thanks anyway, I've checked out what that NHS link has to say about the matter. But I wonder how many ailments are just psychosomatic, which the placebo effect would be a most obvious cure of, and how many non psychosomatic illness's the placebo effect has worked on, if any?

I will see what I can find any info myself, but had no luck on a previous search.

There is no explanation (as yet), how can I explain what scientists don't even know yet? This is why on my first reply to you I said:

Scientists are finally testing the placebo effect to see if they can confirm what testimonials of both laymen and professionals are suggesting.

a reply to: Agartha

It seems to come down to the power of belief essentially.

Research suggests that for psychological reasons, some placebos are more effective than others. Large pills seem to work better than small pills, colored pills work better than white pills, an injection is more powerful than a pill, and surgery gives a stronger placebo effect than injections do.[28]

wiki

Judging by the above quote it would seem the more one believes they are getting "the real deal" cure the better the effect... It's fascinating stuff really! It's also worth pointing out that this means so much dis-ease could also be due to the same effect to start with, just how much of our health and well being is in our heads??

P.s sorry if I came across a bit smart ass/negative in my previous post, it wasn't intended that way, usually I'm better than that honest!