Snoring, Magnetic Therapy and You

Magnetic therapy has been a significant part of Asian healthcare, especially in Japan and China, for a very long time, with some historians suggesting that it could date back more than a thousand years or more.  And for almost as long, acupuncturists and other healthcare practitioners have endeavored to understand and treat chronic, habitual snoring. Over the past two decades, magnetic therapy has also become a more highly visible and quite controversial - part of "alternative" or complementary-medicine protocols in North America and Europe, complementing its long-standing use in the Orient. 

As part of our ongoing research into the causes and remedies for non-apnea snoring, the R&D team that developed the patent-pending SnorEnder has carefully investigated both documented and newly discovered effects of magnetic therapy on the human body for some time.  Because of clinical indications and research that certain forms of magnetic therapy may have positive effects on snoring, the results of our observational studies, although still incomplete, have been incorporated into the unique, new, and patent-pending SnorEnder snoring reduction system.

____________________________

Q&A:

______________________________________________ 

If you snore, you may have Obstructive Sleep Apnea.  ONLY your healthcare professional can diagnose this potentially life-threatening sleep disorder.

SLEEP APNEA:  if you have the symptoms of sleep apnea (especially "paused"  or "stopped" breathing while asleep), please see your healthcare provider immediately.  Sleep apnea is a potentially life-threatening condition that can only be diagnosed and treated by a qualified healthcare practitioner.  Vist the American Sleep Apnea Association's web site (www.sleepapnea.org) for more information.

 

PACEMAKERS:  It was previously thought that people with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers should not use magnetic devices at all, but this recommendation has been adjusted. One study found that with the exception of magnetic mattresses and mattress pads, most magnets sold for therapeutic purposes do not interfere with the magnetically activated switches present in most pacemakers.

 

However, magnetic mattress pads can deactivate and alter the function of ICDs and pacemakers, but other therapeutic magnets are generally safe if kept 6 inches or further from these devices.³³ 

 

There are theoretical concerns that magnets might be risky for people with epilepsy. Similarly, until the physiological effects of magnet treatments are better understood, pregnant women should avoid them.

If you wear a heart pacemaker, we suggest that you talk with your healthcare professional or cardiac specialist before you use the SnorEnder.  Its magnetic fields are small (less than 10.0 MGOe) and should not affect a pacemaker, but informed caution is always advised.

 

INSULIN PUMPS:  Wearers of insulin pumps must consult with their physician before they use any device with magnetic properties.

_______________________________________________

Magnets at the Dawn of History 
 

Since the dawn of human culture, wonder, magic, and healing have always been linked with the mysterious forces exerted by naturally magnetite-rich stones.  Known today as lodestones, they were mankind's first magnets.  Ancient Chinese mariners used a lodestone compass around the 2nd century BCE, sailing their ships from Africa and India to North America, and even (according to some researchers) around the world centuries before Columbus, Magellan and Cook.  And ever more distant use of lodestone magnets as navigational tools are hinted at in ancient Egyptian and other early cultures.

Controversial archaeological discoveries in the 1960's on artifacts taken from ancient shipwrecks off the Greek islands are thought by some archaeological searchers to curiously resemble ordinary dry-cell batteries.  If this is so, they could be among the earliest possible examples of lead-acid batteries, the kind found in your flashlight and portable electronic devices today.  Since there have yet been no proven traces of light bulbs, motors, pulled wire (to transport electrical currents over distance), or other indications of the use of electricity in ancient civilizations, such interpretations of these artifacts remains highly conjectural and even speculative.   But fascinating, nontheless.

When some of these recovered artifacts were reconstructed in a university study, they were found to be capable of producing as much as 1-3 volts of direct current, about what a "D" flashlight battery delivers today.  Others have suggested that the small electrical currents these artifacts might have produced may have been used to stimulate natural healing and disease prevention. 

There is considerable support for this use of low-voltage electrical currents even in today's advanced medicine.  Several patents have been granted recently for experimental treatment of bacterial and viral infections through the use of electrical currents (including one issued a few years ago to PhD researchers at a leading New York medical R&D center for the treatment of AIDS) , and of course, the work of Hulda Clark and other alternative approaches using magnetism or electricity remain highly controversial.  

If ancient artifacts that suggest an understanding of electricity (however primitive) are eventually found, these hints of electricity in the ancient world could be of enormous importance, and even alter what we believe about early human history, in no small part because of their likely connection to magnetism and early healthcare practices. 

A magnetic field can easily be generated through the use of simple electrical circuits, and if such devices were available in the ancient world, the development of human understanding about acupressure, acupuncture, magnetic therapy, feng shui and other healing arts so far back in human history makes much more sense.  But, until and unless these possibilities are proven to exist, the presence of human-created electricity and artificial magnets in the distant past remains ephemeral and highly speculative at best.

However, there are a number of early writings that may indicate that ancient priests, healers, and magicians could have been intimately aware of the awe-inspiring powers of a well-timed electrical shock on illiterate, superstitious and unsophisticated believers.

For example, static electricity, generated by rubbing a sheepskin or cloth vigorously with a metal rod, can deliver a sizeable shock, like the ones you can get from carpets and upholstery.  "Miracles" and other "communications" from the gods via induced shocks could easily have been produced on-demand by such primitive methods, including simple lead-acid batteries.  Of course, ancient physicians may also have used electrical energy and magnetism to treat patients.  But no real proof of any of these speculations exists at this time.  Just tantalizing shards, fragments, bits and pieces.

Although the Bible, many sacred Hindu, Egyptian, Chinese, and even Babylonian writings are thought to mention electricity, magnetism and healing as early as 2500 BCE, more than 5,000 years ago, many Western historians trace the origins of magnetic therapy to Paracelsus (1493-1543 BCE), a Greek physician and alchemist who noticed the lodestone's power to attract iron.  From that observation, he thought that perhaps they could also attract diseases and draw them out of the body.

Teaching more than 2,500 years ago, Paracelsus was obviously limited in his understanding of the human body's complex structures and their functions, but he did clearly grasp the role a patient's mind and attitude can play in the process of healing (Buranelli, 1975).  Paracelsus wrote, "The spirit is the master, the imagination is the instrument, the body is the plastic material.  The moral atmosphere surrounding the patient can have a strong influence on the course of the disease.  It is not the curse or the blessing that works, but the idea.  The imagination produces the effect."  

Paracelsus was apparently quite familiar with both "natural" healing and the placebo effect.  Today, we understand far more about human disease and the processes of healing, but Paracelsus' observations on magnetic therapy were perhaps, not as far from the facts as some think.  At the least, the recent Baylor study (discussed below) suggests that there may be more here than some skeptics would admit.  And certainly much more that needs closer objective study.

Magnetic Malpractice

Fast-forward to the mid-eighteenth-century.  English development of carbon-steel permanent magnets more powerful than lodestones rekindled scientific and medical interest in the possible effects of magnets on the human body.  During a period of "magnetic frenzy" that has been characterized by some historians as outright deception and sham, shrouded in ignorance and greed, magnetic therapy was investigated, exposed, and subsequently ignored.  An ignorance that persists today.

A leading proponent of the medical misuse of magnetic therapy was Franz Anton Mesmer (1734-1815).  His success with the "magnets from Hell" led directly to widespread promotion of his theory of "animal magnetism."  Although he first used real magnets, he quickly discovered that virtually anything - cloth, feathers, paper, wood, leather, and even water - could be "magnetized."  This deception, confusion and quackery persists even today - an example is "magnetized water."  Water, one of the more complex of natures basic substances, can't be magnetized.  "Magnetized" water is nothing more than fraud.

By 1784, Mesmer had become so successful that King Louis XVI of France established a Royal Commission to evaluate his claims of animal magnetism.  An impressive commission that included Benjamin Franklin, Antoine Lavoisier and other leading intellects of the period, conducted a series of public experiments.  They eventually concluded that the observed effects attributed to "animal magnetism" were actually due to the power of suggestion.  The Commission further noted that "the practice of magnetization is the art of increasing the imagination by degrees."  Arriving in Paris shortly after the Commission released its report, Thomas Jefferson wrote in his journal: "Animal magnetism is dead, ridiculed."   Tell that to Hollywood stars and the media...

Sometimes unorthodox ideas, especially those with just the merest kernel of truth, may be ridiculed and ignored, but they can often be very hard to kill.  Particularly as - like the ancient Chinese (and many, many others after them) discovered - interesting, unexpected, and health-improving effects keep turning up in unpredictable ways.  Mesmer and his theories have long ago faded from public view, only to be remembered today as a synonym for hypnosis, if at all.  But the search for the science behind the many and varied claims of magnetic therapy advocates continues worldwide. 

Today's Magnetic Therapy - Grounded in Science, Dismissed by Skeptics 
 

Too often, when new ideas don't fit well into current theories of how the world works, they are ignored, then ridiculed, and after a very long time, sometimes studied and accepted.  Its been said before that "bad science is not replaced by good science until the last of the bad scientists pass away" Only then, are unconventional ideas with demonstrated merit finally accepted into the corpus of human science and understanding. 

Of course, there is also an ugly side to the growing attempts to discredit alternative medical approaches:  money.  Traditional insurance, medical, scientific, pharmaceutical, and even government organizations can feel very threatened by anything that might be more effective, cheaper and with far fewer side effects than what is available in the marketplace today.  It is sensible to practice "caveat emptor" - buyer beware! - for alternative healthcare; it is even moreso for many traditional healthcare products and services, especially those with known unpleasant or even dangerous side effects.

Magnetic therapy is now in the "ridicule & ignore" phase of discovery.  While we, and many, many others trained in science, engineering and medicine feel that it is at the least, worthy of some measure of serious investigation, most skeptics today do not agree.  Acceptance by the mainstream healthcare community will probably have to wait for better studies and research, more compelling data and a new generation of inquiring open minds.

One American who became interested in magnetic healing was Daniel David Palmer.  Founder of Palmer's School of Magnetic Cure in Iowa.  In the 1890's, his controversial ideas gradually developed into the system of hands-on kinetic therapy known as chiropractic.  Ridiculed, tested, refined and eventually proven through more than 100 years of research, well-documented results, extensive scientific investigation, Chiropractic is supported by thousands of carefully designed and conducted multi-year studies.  And now, with official recognition by the Governments of Australia, Canada, the UK, Germany, Sweden, Japan, the USA and elsewhere.  Chiropractic is finally approaching acceptance as a well-established part of modern medical care worldwide.  And, like chiropractic before it, magnetic therapy today seems to be both controversial and promising.

Based on the theoretical work of scientists such as Edison, Marconi, Bell, Tesla and others, the development of electrical and electro-magnetic technologies in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries impressed both scientists and the general public with the mysterious powers of electric and magnetic fields.  Because of this, therapeutic magnets enjoyed new interest.  Many reputable healthcare practitioners started promoting magnets to relieve pain, enhance sleep, and cure a wide variety of diseases.  Even Nicola Tesla, the eccentric, brilliant, and mysterious electrical genius responsible for alternating current (AC), today's electrical transmission standard worldwide, was among those who expressed serious interest in medical uses of electricity and magnetism. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

The more you know about snoring remedies, the better you

understand why the new SnorEnder is uniquely effective

__________________________________________________________________________________


By the mid-twentieth century, materials scientists and engineers had begun to develop stronger permanent magnets alnico (aluminum, nickel, cobalt and iron) magnets in the 1930's, ferrite (ceramic) magnets in the 1950's, and rare-earth magnets in the 1970's and 1980's.  The latest rare-earth magnets, neodymium-iron-boron, are more than a hundred times more powerful than the steel magnets available in the nineteenth century to Edison, Alexander Bell and other researchers.  Many new studies in magnetism are focused on low-temperature superconductivity and the effects of magnetic fields at the sub-atomic scale - nano-magnetism.

Both ferrite magnets and the latest "neo" magnets have had a tremendous impact on modern electronics technology, finding broad use in everything from car stereos, home theatre systems, and PCs to avant-garde clothing, personal grooming, and healthcare products.  Widespread use of the latest generations of magnets, coupled with growing interest in Asian healing arts has re-stimulated interest in magnetic therapy.  Most affordable magnetic therapy products today contain inexpensive, lower-powered ferrite magnets, like those found in refrigerator magnets. 

Magnetic Fields and the Human Body

Science has learned over the past two centuries that the electrochemical processes of the human body are extremely complex and still incompletely understood.  The physical effects of even very small magnetic fields on the human body cannot be ruled out.  

Partly the result of military research into non-lethal weapons, tens of thousands of scientific papers have been published on a wide range of observed biological effects of electromagnetic fields.  Much of this research has recently focused on the effects of cell towers, powerlines, radio-frequency and microwave fields. 

Controversial studies in Sweden, Canada, and elsewhere have focused on electromagnetic fields at power-line frequencies (fifty or sixty cycles per second).  Numerous studies of real and suspected biological effects of steady magnetic fields (reviewed by Frankel and Liburdy 1996) have concentrated mostly on high-strength fields of the level encountered in MRI magnets, typically of the order of 10,000 gauss (1 tesla).  This has been spurred on by concerns over the potential health effects of powerful magnetic fields on the human body and brain.

Unfortunately, credible research has been very limited at field levels typical of magnetic therapy products, most of which are limited to a few hundred gauss at most, even at the magnet and skin surface.  To get an idea of the limited power of refrigerator magnets, you might note that the earth's magnetic field is a bit less than half a gauss at the surface.  Astronauts, however, have encountered a field much stronger as they orbited the planet and traveled to the moon.

It would be overly simplistic to view the human body as inert material, because the human body, like its primary constituent, water, is diamagnetic.  That means that it is weakly repelled by magnetic fields.  In response to an applied magnetic field, the electrons in water molecules make slight adjustments in their motions, producing a net magnetic field in the opposing direction about 100,000 times smaller than the applied field.  However, with the removal of the applied field, the electrons return to their original orbits, and the water molecules once again become nonmagnetic. 

Therein lies an interesting claim of some "magnetic therapy" products:  you may have read about the "benefits" of "magnetized water."  However, you cannot magnetize water.  In fact, water is a unique natural compound: it exists in three states (solid, liquid, and gas) and is the basis for life as we understand it.  Although water does diamagnetically respond weakly to an applied magnetic field, the response is dependent on the strength of the applied field and disappears as soon as the field is removed. 

In numerous studies, the diamagnetism of water and most living things (since we are all mostly composed of water) is very weak.  In fascinating tests, a high-field electromagnet producing 160,000 gauss (16 tesla) at the center of the coil has recently been used to levitate not only water drops but also flowers, grasshoppers, and even small frogs (Berry and Geim 1997).  Since fields of that immense magnitude are required to balance gravitational forces, the much lower fields generated by consumer magnetic-therapy devices can only produce diamagnetic forces that are thousands of times smaller than gravity.  They may have subtle, almost indiscernible effects on the human body, but that has yet to be reliably observed.  However, magnetic effects on the nervous systems and health of levitated frogs have not yet been widely explored.  Perhaps they should.

Some "magnetic therapy" marketing claims have suggested that magnetic fields work by attracting blood, citing the iron in its chemical composition.  Hemoglobin is the main transport mechanism of oxygen and carbon dioxide in the blood.  It is composed of globin a group of amino acids that form a protein and heme which contains iron atoms and imparts the red color to hemoglobin.  However, iron in the blood is very different from metallic iron, which is strongly magnetic because of the way it is structured at the atomic level. 

In ferrous iron, the individual atomic magnets are strongly coupled together by the phenomenon we call ferromagnetism.  The remarkable properties of ferromagnetic materials are a result of the cooperative behavior of many, many magnetic atoms acting in unison.  But the iron in blood consists instead of isolated iron atoms within large hemoglobin molecules, located inside the red blood cells.  Although each of the iron atoms is itself magnetic, it is isolated, away from other iron atoms, and remains magnetically independent and insignificantly weak.  The net effect of this weak paramagnetism characteristic of isolated iron atoms in hemoglobin yields only a very slight decrease in the overall diamagnetism of blood.  Therefore, blood, like water, is weakly repelled by magnetic fields, not attracted to them.  But, there is an observed effect, nonetheless.

Although most components of the human body and other living things are weakly diamagnetic, many organisms have been shown to contain small amounts of strongly magnetic materials, usually ingested magnetite (Fe3O4).  One of the most extreme examples of "magnetic" personalities is the magnetotactic bacteria, originally found in mud collected from the marshes of Cape Cod.  Each bacteria contains a long chain of magnetite particles that interact strongly enough with the earth's magnetic field to orient the bacteria along the field. 

Such bacteria may also be elsewhere.  An Iowa State University professor is part of a research team that has found compelling evidence that Mars once supported primitive life.  The researchers discovered possible evidence of bacteria in a Martian meteorite.  Tiny magnetite crystals -- so called magnetofossils -- embedded in the meteorite were thought to be the type produced only by a biological process unique to magnetotactic bacteria. 

Magnetite crystals have also been found in pigeons, honeybees, many mammals, and even in the human brain, but in proportionately much smaller amounts than in bacteria.  So, while it seems unlikely that there is enough magnetite within the human body to provide a possible mechanism to explain magnetic therapy, it might be possible in another way.  

If magnetite particles were located at strategic touchpoints, such as the nerve endings associated with acupressure points, they could locally focus and amplify the effects of very low magnetic fields and even modify ion flow across nerve cell membranes, triggering electrical transmission in nerve cells and thus possibly creating some of the anti-snoring effects of subtle magnetic therapy that weve seen in our studies.  There is some evidence to suggest that, indeed, very small, transient deposits of magnetite may be present in these areas.

Magnetic Therapy and Healthcare
 

It is important to understand that the medical efficacy of any medical treatment, mainstream, or alternative (including magnetic therapy) does not depend on our understanding of the biological mechanisms involved.  After all, it was more than a century after aspirin was invented that even the most basic understanding of how it works was gained.  Nevertheless, many promoters of magnetic therapy seem to feel the need to offer some "plausible" explanation for how their product works.  We don't, we're still doing R&D; and anyway, we're definitely not making any medical claims.

Open-minded scientists admit that both magnetism and "magnetic therapy" are very poorly understood today.  We have observed statistically significant differences in the anti-snoring effects of the SnorEnder - with and without its integrated magnetic therapy and acupressure features.  As you read more about magnetic therapy, you may find that one mechanism commonly offered for various therapeutic effects of magnets is "improved" blood circulation, despite a lack of clear evidence for such an effect.  Hemoglobin, the "iron" in blood, can't be magnetized any more than water can. 

Other theories advanced to explain observations on magnetic therapy include alteration of nerve impulses (which is what we suspect may be happening, but have only seen indications of in concert with specific acupressure receptor points), increased oxygen content and increased alkalinity of bodily fluids, magnetic forces on moving ions, and decreased deposits on the walls of blood vessels.  The problem, as we admit up front, is that there has been little research in this area, and far too many credible researchers understandably shy away from studying topics such as this that could damage their careers.

New Findings on The Use of Magnetic Therapy

_________________________________________________________________________________

Source:	University of Bonn, Germany
Date:	2005-07-12  (July 12, 2005) Reported by Science Daily
URL:	http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/07/050712140901.htm reproduced here for informational purposes only

Snoring & Magnetic Therapy Today
 

Snoring is a serious healthcare problem, one that costs hundreds of millions of dollars each year in lost sleep and decreased work productivity.  There are a wide range of anti-snoring remedies, too many with little effect. 

Therefore, the U.S. Food and Drug Administration (FDA), has become increasingly strict about what distributors and manufacturers of alternative or complementary healthcare products, including anti-snoring remedies, can state.  The reason for this justifiable caution is simple:  very few of these products have been subjected to the rigorous, costly, multi-year validation, efficacy, and safety process that prescription drugs and traditional medical devices must pass through before they can be sold to the public. 

In fact, the alternative healthcare products industry and the FDA have a long and often controversial history of disagreement over appropriate processes, standards, terminologies, and validation requirements for alternative and complementary healthcare products or services. 

Chiropractic, for example, took more than a century of field practice and academic research before a sufficient body of evidence yielded official government recognition in Europe, Australia, Canada, Japan, the US and elsewhere.  Acupuncture and acupressure, long practiced in China; have yet to achieve such validation, although some healthcare insurance plans now cover some acupuncture treatments, especially for sports teams.  Magnetic therapy is still a long way from official acceptance.

Key Research Findings

Our research spans a number of years and is based on numerous trial-and-error efforts over that period of time.  It was during that long-term effort that we discovered new insights into the effects of very small magnetic fields and acupressure on snoring.

Based on our research, we have built a hypothesis to describe how these factors may influence snoring in adults.  Our research findings do not apply to children, as we have done no research with them as subjects.  The average age of experimental subjects ranges from the mid-40's to almost 60 years, and both male and female subjects were studied.

As described in this article, it has been documented that strong, focused magnetic fields have a direct and measurable effect on human tissues.  However, small magnetic fields, such as those produced by the SnorEnder, have not been:

               - Studied by mainstream science in sufficient detail, and;

               - Found to have discernable, measurable physiological effects

               - Without controversy; the effect of magnetic fields on humans (if any) not known

However, a number of credible medical studies in Sweden, Canada, Japan, and elsewhere have increasingly suggested that the human body may be far more sensitive to very low-level electro-magnetic fields than previously thought.  Given the simple fact that your home is, in reality, an electro-magnetic field of varying strength, further study is needed.  The average home, wired throughout to provide electricity, is the source of relatively weak yet very persistent magnetic fields.  Wiring in the walls, ceilings, and floors creates a current-flow that generates such magnetic fields.  Refrigerators, electrical motors, even personal computers all produce electro-magnetic fields that may, according to a growing number of qualified researchers, have subtle effects on human tissues and our nervous systems.

The SnorEnder & Magnetic Therapy

The SnorEnder is engineered to produce a very small, but consistent magnetic field that is focused around several acupressure points or areas that are believed by many acupressure practitioners to be linked to stress reduction, sleep patterns, and breathing - all of which may (or may not) affect snoring.

Its magnetic properties are shown in this unretouched photograph of the magnetic field created by a SnorEnder prototype earpad. The magnetic field shown here projects through several layers of foam, plastic, lycra fabric and paper (approximately 10-15 mm, sufficient to penetrate the skin and interact with acupressure points); it is visible and measurable.

Highlighted through the use of small iron filings, this example of a SnorEnder earpad shows two major and visible (black dots) magnetic "hotspots" targeted at key acupressure points. 

Each of our SnorEnder Pro and SnorEnder II snoring relief systems contains two individual ear "pads," asymmetrically designed to optimize different sets of acupressure points on each side of the wearer's head. 

Minor magnetic "hotspots" and complementary magnetic "pressure" zones are also shown, and you can see the outline of the SnorEnder's magnetic core. 

Shown here:  prototype magnetic earpads.  This innovative technology is part of the unique structure of the SnorEnder snoring relief system. Current earpad technology DOES NOT have "bumps" and you probably can't detect the magnetic field without sensitive laboratory equipment.  A paperclip, and maybe even a small compass aren't sensitive enough.

This print of the magnetic fields generated by a SnorEnder prototype ear pad show some of its "points."  This is a simpler technology-demonstration model of the more complex magnetic field structure used in the SnorEnder.

The new SnorEnder's uniquely innovative technology (integrated bio-mechanical, magnetic therapy, acupressure) has been engineered to help reduce stress and may aid in reducing or even stopping snoring in adults. 

But, a key point that must be made is that "immediate" snoring reduction effects" that can be tied to either acupressure or magnetic therapy just aren't there.  It seems to take some period of time before any discernable effects that may be attributable to acupressure or magnetic therapy show up.

There is some confusion over the kinds of magnets that should be used in "magnetic therapy" products.  Some products use neodymium magnets, the most powerful available, and state that you need magnets this powerful to gain therapeutic effects.  We have not found that to entirely true. 

For some applications, such as bed sheet and products that specifically target arthritic joints, neodymium magnets may be appropriate.  But for use at or near the head, we feel that these more powerful magnets may pose unknown and unnecessary risks. Because there has been relatively little research into the effects of powerful magnetic fields in close proximity to the brain, we prefer to use the somewhat less powerful ferrous ceramic class of magnets, in both sheet and disk formats.

We observed that subjects who wore the SnorEnder (several generations of prototypes were developed over a period of years), did not materially reduce their non-apnea snoring until they had worn the device for at least several weeks.  While the bio-mechanical features of the SnorEnder can help reduce snoring immediately, any longer-term effects of acupressure and magnetic therapy may take time (if any effects do in fact happen)  We are presently studying this effect to learn more, but no claims of any kind can be reasonably be made at this time.

We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover Card and PayPal

ONE YEAR Money Back Guarantee*   _____________________________________________________     *SnorEnder Refund Policy:   The products we make and sell are all custom, hand-made items and require significant labor.  We will refund 50% of the purchase price when you return the product to us at the address listed here or on the enclosed instruction brochure that comes with your order.  Shipping & Handling fees are NOT refundable.  We will also charge a $5.00 refund fee because the credit card processors also charge us to issue a refund to your card.  If this is not agreeable to you, please don't order.  Thanks for understanding.   No refunds are given after the ONE YEAR Guarantee period is expired. ____________________

Magnetic Fields & Creativity

Little study has been done on how the mind reacts to these smaller and persistent magnetic fields, yet interestingly, many creative people who work on difficult and complex mental tasks have reported that they often find their insight and creativity markedly improved when working away from sources of electricity - on walks in the countryside, spending time in un-wired and "primitive" mountain or lakeside cabins, and the like.  Such "anecdotal" observations are not "science" but they do point to potential areas of structured inquiry.

Many people have also observed that mental activity in those working alone or in small groups "after midnight" seems to be "clearer" and "more focused."  This phenomenon has been observed and noted worldwide for many years, although on an informal basis.  Authors, scientists, artists, third-shift computer and medical professionals and others have observed that they often feel that "the world is not as noisy" in the early morning hours. 

Whether this may have something to do with the fact that the primary source of electro-magnetic energy, the Sun, is shielded by the earth's mass, is unknown at this time.  But it seems a reasonable conjecture in the absence of research findings.  Over the last 100 years, we humans have extended powerful electrical grids around the globe - and with them, changes in the Earth's natural electro-magnetic fields.  Major cities and suburbs are pervasively wired, with power sub-stations often located in neighborhood proximity to homes, schools and places of work.

In our research, we have found that small magnetic fields placed in close proximity to specific acupressure points (points that have been documented by World Health Organization initiatives), seem to have a discernable effect on certain neuromotor functions related to the brain, and in particular, those areas associated with stress management, autonomic motor functions related to sleep, breathing, and muscle tone.  It is these areas, and others, that have been well documented in acupuncture and acupressure literature for more than a thousand years that we believe may yield information on how the SnorEnder may help reduce snoring in many (but not all) adults.

We can not make ANY claims and are continuing to research this area, and future products may show the results of further study.

__________________________________________________________________________________

NOTICE:  The U.S. Food and Drug Agency (FDA) has determined that there is insufficient scientific evidence to support the acceptance of magnetic therapy as offering any benefit in the treatment of disease.  There is at this time, the FDA asserts, no scientific basis to conclude that small, static magnets can relieve pain or influence the course of any disease.  In fact, many of today's products produce no significant magnetic field at or beneath the skin's surface. 

In order to comply with Government regulations and for your information, we do NOT claim that the SnorEnder snoring reduction system is suitable to diagnose or treat any disease.  Nor have the SnorEnder's magnetic therapy features (or, as far as we are aware, any other OTC product's magnetic therapy features for that matter) been demonstrated to cure, treat, or mitigate any disease or affect any change in the human body.  Magnetic therapy, except for certain kinds of "pulsed" devices, is not presently accepted and certified by the FDA for any human medical purpose.  Under U.S. law, only healthcare devices that are FDA-approved for specific purposes are permitted to make such health claims. 

That's why most alternative and complementary personal care suppliers, including the makers of the SnorEnder, emphasize only "comfort" and specifically state that "no medical claims whatsoever are made for this product."  This doesn't necessarily mean that such "comfort" products are worthless.  It simply means that they do not meet stringent and VERY expensive FDA requirements and cannot legally claim any efficacy for treatment of disease.  For example, some analysts have estimated that the total cost of a new pharmaceutical drug, from concept to final FDA approval can be as much as $800 million or more. 

__________________________________________________________________________________

That said, here is what we believe we have learned about the effects of magnetic therapy on chronic, habitual snoring, based on available research and studies conducted by the principal R&D team that designed the SnorEnder - on themselves and other volunteers.  We make no claims that any studies conform to the rigorous standards demanded by government, skeptics, or the healthcare industry.  This is just what we have observed.

If you snore, you may have Obstructive Sleep Apnea.  ONLY your healthcare professional can diagnose this potentially life-threatening sleep disorder.

Anti-Snoring Studies
 

We believe the SnorEnder works.  We've seen it work in a growing number of volunteer subjects over a period of years, as we evolved the technology.  We believe that it may help reduce snoring in adults when used consistently on a nightly basis over time.  We've seen the results again and again. 

However, we are admittedly biased in our analysis of the study results - and you are most certainly free to accept or dismiss our findings as you wish.  After all, we created the SnorEnder, after enduring several frustrating years of loud, persistent, chronic snoring night after night.  We believe in it because we've spent much of the past few years thinking about the problem of snoring. 

We know it works for us, and for others who've used it.  And, honestly, we hope you'll buy it, try it and find that it works for you, too.  We believe it will work for most people - but we'd be untruthful if we claimed that the SnorEnder will work for "everyone."  That's why we have a ONE YEAR return policy. 

And PLEASE - feel free to try it for a full 365 days.  Return it for a 50% refund within our ONE YEAR MONEY BACK GUARANTEE time period, less the shipping & handling fee, if you're not satisfied that it works for you to reduce, and even stop the snoring.

In our studies, we found that there was a statistically significant difference between SnorEnder users who were given a headband with our patent-pending technology and those users who were not (the control group).  The differences were noted both in the frequency (number of times during the night when snoring occurred), and the intensity (loudness, as measured in decibels.). 

Additionally, SnorEnder users with the patent-pending features were observed to sleep about 5% longer and toss & turn about 8% less than the control group - a small statistical variance, but meaningful in the context of the limited studies we have done to-date.  Admittedly, our studies were not conducted under the rigorous standards of an FDA-sanctioned medical study.  But, our backgrounds in healthcare (nursing) and academic research (including experience as college and university instructors, and work at IBM and Bell Labs) gives us reasonable confidence in the methodology used and results observed.

Further, we believe that the unique integration of both magnetic therapy and acupressure (our patent-pending technologies), together with the SnorEnder's adaptive biomechanical design to reduce open-mouth breathing during sleep, may be key factors in the observed results.  Of course, the most important factor, as it is with any anti-snoring aid, is consistent nightly use of the SnorEnder according to the enclosed instructions.

We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover Card and PayPal

ONE YEAR Money Back Guarantee*   _____________________________________________________       *SnorEnder Refund Policy:   The products we make and sell are all custom, hand-made items and require significant labor.  We will refund 50% of the purchase price when you return the product to us at the address listed here or on the enclosed instruction brochure that comes with your order.  Shipping & Handling fees are NOT refundable.  We will also charge a $5.00 refund fee because the credit card processors also charge us to issue a refund to your card.  If this is not agreeable to you, please don't order.  Thanks for understanding.   No refunds are given after the ONE YEAR Guarantee period is expired. ____________________     MSN Health-Article that appeared online the week of 11 March 2007 Included here for informational purposes only   Magnetic Therapy By Rich Maloof for MSN Health & Fitness Reality Check   For over 25 years it has been widely accepted that pulsed electromagnetic fields can help treat bone fractures, and there is growing evidence to suggest a process known as transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS) is effective in treating mental disorders such as severe depression.   There is less convincing evidence for the popular self-help therapy based on applying small magnets to various body parts. A great number of alternative health sources have advertised that wearing magnetic jewelry can speed healing from injuries, “aid blood flow,” ease arthritic pain and relax aching muscles. The inevitable result of citing unsubstantiated health claims like these—and then trying to sell magnetic bangles, necklaces, rings, blankets, mattresses and insoles—is strained credibility. However, one 2004 study did show decreased pain from osteoarthritis of the hip and knee.   Magnets may have healing potential similar to acupuncture needles.   Agatha Colbert, a physician with over 20 years’ experience in clinical practice, is studying the restorative effects of magnet therapy on the body. She has seen the benefits of acupuncture clearly demonstrated and hypothesizes that magnetic fields may help establish homeostatic balance in a similar way.   “I tend to think of magnets as potentially working through the same mechanisms as acupuncture: Not with a dramatic change or a magic bullet, but by kind of ‘nudging’ the body back towards health,” she says.   If magnetic therapy does work, wearing a bracelet is probably not an adequate application.   It’s not the magnet itself but the magnetic field that may have therapeutic properties. Once a specific ailment or pain is identified, the shape and strength of that field may need to be directly applied to a precise location on the body, whether it is the actual pain site or an acupuncture point. If magnets gain legitimacy, it will be as a carefully executed therapy—not as some kind of groovy, magic force. Those curious should consult a licensed acupuncturist or homeopathic practitioner rather than the guy at the head shop.   Few studies have controlled the parameters that would offer solid proof.   “In most of the clinical trials to date, researchers have not figured out beforehand what is the best magnetic dose to use,” says Colbert, who estimates some 55 legitimate studies have been conducted. “Where do you put the magnet, how long do you leave it there, and how often do you apply it? What material is the magnet made of, and what is the polar configuration? The approach needs to be refined.”   Colbert, currently at the National College of Natural Medicine, is working on a research grant funded by the National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM, which is part of the National Institutes of Health) to examine the effectiveness of using magnets of different strengths to treat carpal tunnel syndrome.   Magnets sure do have a polarizing effect.   A 1997 study at Baylor College of Medicine showed favorable results of using magnets to treat painful trigger points in former polio victims. Sellers of magnetic products, seizing an opportunity to validate the therapy, cited the study in droves—and stretched its implications far beyond the actual findings. An article on Quackwatch.com promptly shot holes in the Baylor study.   Says Colbert, “There’s a lot of skepticism and fear about magnet therapy, and I don’t know why. What do we have to lose by studying magnetic therapy or even trying it? Magnets don’t cost much and are unlikely to hurt anyone. If it turns out they are helpful, people will have a readily available resource for keeping themselves healthy.” She continues, cautiously noting that pregnant women and people with pacemakers, and anyone physically close to them, should not experiment with magnets: “There seems to be a lot of emotion tied up in it. Maybe we can reduce the emotion and seek more information; a little less heat and a little more light.”   (THIS is the right approach - adequate study and an open, scientific and OBJECTIVE methodology.)   Rich Maloof lives in Brooklyn, New York. He specializes in health topics, music and children’s literature. He has written for CNN, Yahoo!, Billboard and the “For Dummies” book series.     ___________________________

The Baylor Study - Magnetic Therapy

More than a hundred years of controversy, fraud and investigation of the connections between magnets and medical quackery, have led many serious researchers to the viewpoint that modern magnetic therapy is still mostly nonsense.  Claims for the success of magnetic treatments are "explainable by placebo effects." But the Baylor study, reported to be a careful double-blind study, has surprised many. 

The study was conducted by Dr. Carlos Vallbona on fifty (50) post-polio patients at Baylor's Institute for Rehabilitation Research in Houston, Texas.  Bioflex, Inc., of Corpus Christi provided both the magnets (multipolar, circular pattern) and a set of visually identical sham magnets to serve as controls.  To keep the study "double-blind" neither the patients nor the staff were informed as to which devices were active magnets, and which were shams.  Before and after the forty-five-minute period of magnet therapy, the patients were asked to grade their pain on a scale from 0 to 10.  The twenty-nine patients with active magnets reported, on average, a significant reduction of pain (from 9.6 to 4.4), while the twenty-one patients with shams reported a much smaller average reduction (from 9.5 to 8.4).  This is a substantial difference, and if the double-blind study was successfully conducted, it cannot be explained by a placebo effect. 

Both Dr. Vallbona and his colleague, Dr. Carlton Hazlewood, had previously reported the successful personal use of magnets to relieve their own knee pains prior to the study, raising doubts as to their objectivity.  Of course, by that standard, almost every significant advance in the past half-century would be disqualified.  Salk and Sabin both had personal interests in eradicating polio.  And while conscious or unconscious biases of researchers can have very subtle and unrecognized effects on the results of their studies, most experienced researchers and their peer reviewers understand the challenges in designing and conducting any double-blind studies.  Another objection to the Baylor Study was that patients could have skewed the results by figuring out active magnets from sham magnets (although the patients were reportedly observed during the therapy period to assure that they were not surreptitiously testing their magnets - probably by trying to attach them to refrigerators?).  Reasonable care seems to have been taken to minimize this concern.

For the skeptic, some doubts about the Baylor Study persist.  A key critique of the study is that any studies of pain relief must adequately cope with the highly subjective nature of the data.  Pain is a very new area of scientific study, with much debate over terms, conditions, and methods of measuring, analyzing, and verifying "pain."

Safety Concerns

Based on empirical studies and clinical observations worldwide, small magnets appear to be safe.  The greatest health risk appears to be irritation from tape holding them in place. Magnetic Resonance Imaging (MRI) machines, for example, expose the body to gigantic magnetic fields, and extensive long-term investigation has found no evidence of harm from repeated exposure. However, during the MRI, the patient is subjected to a high level of magnetism for a short period of time, whereas people who use static magnets daily or sleep on them every night are subjected to a low level of magnetism over a long period of time. So far, it is not known whether this type of exposure has any deleterious effects.

Nonetheless, one study in which participants slept on a magnetic mattress pad every night for 4 months found no side effects.³¹ In addition, a safety study of rTMS found no evidence of harm.³²

Pacemakers

It was previously thought that people with implantable cardioverter defibrillators (ICDs) and pacemakers should not use magnetic devices at all, but this recommendation has been adjusted. One study found that with the exception of magnetic mattresses and mattress pads, most magnets sold for therapeutic purposes do not interfere with the magnetically activated switches present in most pacemakers.

However, magnetic mattress pads can deactivate and alter the function of ICDs and pacemakers, but other therapeutic magnets are generally safe if kept 6 inches or further from these devices.³³  There are theoretical concerns that magnets might be risky for people with epilepsy. Similarly, until the physiological effects of magnet treatments are better understood, pregnant women should avoid them.

If you snore, you may have Obstructive Sleep Apnea.  ONLY your healthcare professional can diagnose this potentially life-threatening sleep disorder.

The Baylor Study - Results & Claims

The main basis for the Baylor Study's claims is a double-blind test study, conducted at Baylor College of Medicine in Houston, which compared the effects of magnets and sham magnets on knee pain.  The study involved 50 adult patients with pain related to having been infected with the poliovirus when they were children.  Either a multipolar magnetic device (a disk) or an identical placebo device was applied to the patient's skin for 45 minutes.  The patients were then asked to rate how much pain they experienced when a "trigger point was touched."  Anyone who has been to a chiropractor or had acupressure (or acupuncture) treatments understands what a "trigger point" is.  As does anyone who has ever hit his or her elbow "funny bone."

The researchers reported that the 29 patients exposed to the magnetic device achieved lower pain scores than did the 21 who were exposed to the placebo device.  Although this study is cited by nearly everyone selling magnets, Dr. Barrett states that "it provides no legitimate basis for concluding that magnets offer any health-related benefit.  A reasonable statement on the surface, but perhaps not so much if the Baylor results are repeated and confirmed by other studies.

The Baylor Study - Skeptical Concerns

(and concerns about "skeptics")

Some of the most strident objections raised about the Baylor Study were voiced in a very good article written by a physician (no longer licensed or permitted to practice medicine, by the way) and "Quackwatch" author, Dr. Stephen Barrett, M.D.   In his article (available on the Internet), Dr. Barrett correctly noted that over the "past few years, magnetic devices have been claimed to relieve pain and to have therapeutic value against a large number of diseases and conditions." 

Using his controversial article as a foundation, we have attempted to dissect and analyze the major objections raised by informed (and uninformed) sceptics about today's magnetic therapy - claims, facts, myths, and the need for more honset, careful research.

Dr. Barrett points out that the proper way to evaluate such claims is to ask whether scientific studies have been published.  That's not quite correct. 

Formal studies are a valuable and important part of proper scientific evaluations, but so are actual experiments, and even anecdotal information can be useful as an indication of where scientific inquiry may be productively focused.  The key problem with an "insistence" on published studies is this:  very few scientific studies have been done on "magnetic therapy" anyway, primarily because "credible" researchers tend to view magnetic therapy as a "fringe" topic, much like "UFOs."  

Since the vast bulk of scientific studies on healthcare are sponsored and funded by the pharmaceutical industry, it is unlikely that this problem will improve soon. It would also be difficult to see, in the present "quackwatch" and "junk science" atmosphere that pervades much of the scientific community, how any reputable and career-conscious researcher would want to get involved in such studies.

Except, that is, for the obvious: there is just too much evidence that "something" is going on with magnetic fields and the human body.  Still, few, if any, respectable scientists are willing to risk the ridicule and career-ending criticism they would face if they actually took "magnetic therapy" or any other "quack science" seriously enough to construct careful, objective studies.  Yet, pulsed "magnetic therapy" IS FDA-approved for certain veterinarian medical protocols.  And farm animals aren't THAT different from humans.

Dr. Barrett and others also note that what little medical research that has been done has focused on pulsed electromagnetic fields. These are devices that induce easily measurable electric fields and they have been demonstrated to be effective in the treatment of slow-healing fractures.  They have also shown promise for a few other conditions.

However, few studies have been published on the effect on pain of small, multipolar magnets the kind sold to consumers.  Future versions of the SnorEnder may include a "pulsed" electro-magnetic field capability - this is also part of the basic patent application that was filed.  But, of course, no health or medical claims can be made by us or any snoring mitigation product without FDA approval.

Explanations that magnetic fields "increase circulation," "reduce inflammation," or "speed recovery from injuries" are "considered to be simplistic and are not supported by the weight of experimental evidence."  But, so far, there is very little "evidence" to draw definitive conclusions about magnetic therapy, from either the "advocate" or "skeptic" approach.

Key Objections

A key objection to the Baylor study was that "although the groups were said to be selected randomly, the ratio of women to men in the experimental group was twice that of the control group.  Randomness sometimes does that.  If women happen to be more responsive to placebos than men, a surplus of women in the "treatment" group would tend to improve that group's score."  That is a concern, but it can generally be handled with relatively simple statistical modeling techniques and standard clinical study methodologies.

Of course, women could also be more "susceptible" to magnetic therapy.  And its "common knowledge" that women are usually "more in responsive and in-touch with how they feel than are men."    But that "observation" is as much folklore as it is "science."

This objection is one that would need a lot more study before it could be used to discredit the Baylor results.  Our suspicion is that women, who endure menstrual cramping monthly for much of their lives, have no problem recognizing the different "levels" of pain their bodies may suffer.  Most men also possess the same abilities, but probably to some lesser degree.

Dr, Barrett's second objection is that the average age of the placebo group was four years higher than that of the control group.  "If advanced age makes a person more difficult to treat, the "treatment" group would again have a scoring advantage."  Perhaps this is true.  It certainly could be significant, but Dr. Barrett offers no studies to "prove" his point.  Also, this objection assumes that for most study cohorts, a four-year age difference is meaningful.  In many medical studies on adults, such a small age difference is generally unremarkable.  Unless we're talking about infants and small children, teens, menopausal women or the very old - specific age groups with specific study objectives.  And the Baylor study wasn't working with any of these age-dependent groups.  A four-year age difference among middle-aged and young senior adults is slight and can be handled statistically in a number of accepted ways.

Dr. Barrett's third objection is that "The investigators did not measure the exact pressure exerted by the blunt object at the trigger point before and after the study."  If the relatively slight differences in "pressure" that could be exerted by a polio patient's hand can make that much of a difference, then perhaps acupressure should have been the subject of the study, and not magnets.  Again, since this study was conducted over a period of time, these differences would have probably averaged out.  If they are, in fact, significant, more research into pressure on "trigger points" would be suggested.

Dr. Barrett's fourth objection is: "Even if the above considerations have no significance, the study should not be extrapolated to suggest that other types of pain can be relieved by magnets."  It wasn't - and he's right.  It shouldn't.  Only multipolar magnets of a certain round shape, thickness, and gauss level were used.  In science, extrapolation can and does occur quite frequently, but usually if clearly defined conditions and boundaries are described.  The fact that "magnetic therapy" vendors are using the Baylor study to "justify their claim" does not, of itself, invalidate the study.  It just means that the vendors are practicing "sales science."

And no, we are not using the Baylor study to "validate any claims for magnetic therapy through use of the SnorEnder because we're NOT MAKING any claims.  That would very probably be in violation of FDA and FTC regulations.  And, while we've observed subtle results from magnetic therapy and acupressure (our patent-pending technology), we do not yet believe that sufficient research has been done by anyone that would support "any healthcare claims" that the FDA would accept.

Dr. Barrett's fifth objection is that: "There was just one brief exposure and no systematic follow-up of patients.  Thus there was no way to tell whether any improvement would be more than temporary."  This is a good time to point out that the Baylor study could easily be repeated any number of times, on any number of willing patients.  All it would take is willing physicians and researchers; there would be no shortage of willing patients.

Dr. Barrett notes that "The authors themselves acknowledge that the study was a "pilot study."  Yet, pilot studies are done virtually everywhere to determine whether it makes sense to invest in a larger more definitive, time-consuming, and expensive study.  They never provide a legitimate basis for marketing any product as effective against any symptom or health problem.  A legitimate objection and one that we wholeheartedly agree with.  More studies, more careful research.  More effort in finding cheaper, faster, and better ways to address pain and discomfort would be welcomed by patients everywhere.

Dr. Barrett also describes two "better-designed, longer-lasting pain studies" which have been negative:  "Researchers at the New York College of Podiatric Medicine have reported negative results in a study of patients with heel pain.  Over a 4-week period, 19 patients wore a molded insole containing a magnetic foil, while 15 patients wore the same type of insole with no magnetic foil.  In both groups, 60% reported improvement, which suggests that the magnetic foil conveyed no benefit. 

The key problem with this NYC study is that "4 weeks" is not a long enough period of time to ascertain much of anything, and "magnetic foil" is as weak a magnetic source as one can find. Think of Mesmer and his "magnetic paper."  On the surface, the study reads as if it was designed to produce failure and it succeeded.  Or, maybe it was the molded insole itself that cause the 60% increased benefit.  That would be a result more in agreement with hundreds of Chiropractic and kinesiology studies over the past half century.

"More recently, researchers at the VA Medical Center in Prescott, Arizona conducted a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled, crossover study involving 20 patients with chronic back pain.  Each patient was exposed to real and sham bipolar permanent magnets during alternate weeks, for 6 hours per day, 3 days per week for a week, with a 1-week period between the treatment weeks.  No difference in pain or mobility was found between the treatment and sham-treatment periods."   

This study is the only one cited by Dr. Barrett that would be considered a credible rebuttal of the Baylor study. But again, the study period was far too short to be credible. Do this study for 2 years, and let's see what results emerge.  What it really shows is that more information, more studies, and much more research is needed. 

________________

Follow The Money

After all, regular consumption of large doses of vitamin C was first advocated by Nobel Laureate, Dr. Linus Pauling in 1971.  Although widely discredited for decades, recent well-designed studies have linked daily consumption of at least 1,000 mg doses of vitamin C and E (And now vitamin D) to significant reductions in the risk of developing Alzheimer's disease, cancer and other degenerative diseases among the elderly.  But only if taken regularly several years before extreme old age. 

Magnetic therapy and other alternative healthcare approaches need more research, more data, better science.  That's the best way to discredit the claims that can't stand rigorous scientific scrutiny.  And, of course, every few months a "new" study pops up purporting to "prove" that large daily doses of ANY vitamin is not only a waste of money, but probably dangerous.  Far too often, these studies are revealed later to be financed by a big drug company with a hidden agenda, done with sloppy research methods, or just plain silly.

The REAL bottom-line for any health studies is (1) Find out who is paying for it; (2) Find out how the study was constructed; (3) Find out who is intended to benefit financially from the results; (4) find out if others have done similar studies and look at their results in the same analytical way.  

ONLY THEN, can you know if a study is designed to misdirect attention, yield truth, or just sell you something.

This result should be obvious however, because the human body just isn't "magnetic" in the sense that a bar of iron is.  It is however, a highly complex "electro-chemical factory" - one that can be measurably influenced over time by the slightest external forces on it, in an astounding number of ways.  External forces such as light, heat, chemicals, gravity, electric fields and possibly even magnetism.  An extreme version of "magnetic" diagnosis is the MRI, the Magnetic Resonance Imager.

More likely mechanisms are probably those based on subtle magnetic forces on moving charged particles, possibly including ions or charged molecules at nerve-endings, in flowing blood, moving across cell membranes, moving across synapses between nerve cells, etc., or those based on more subtle effects due to biochemical reactions (Frankel and Liburdy 1996).  Although no physical mechanisms for magnetic therapy have been established, the possibilities are numerous and complex.  Only further clinical tests, carefully controlled to account for placebo and external electromagnetic effects, will be able to confirm or disprove the results of the Baylor study and the claims of magnetic therapy. 

"Despite these various reasons for caution," the results of the Baylor study have altered the views of many physicians.  Dr. William Jarvis, president of the National Council Against Health Fraud, had formerly dismissed magnet therapy as "essentially quackery."  He now tentatively admits that it may have value for post-polio pain.  We suggest that its still too early to jump on the "magnetic therapy bandwagon."  More study is needed.  

Some media reports that have discussed the Baylor study have not sufficiently distinguished the devices used in Baylor's form of magnetic therapy, based on modest static fields from permanent magnets, from a more accepted form of "magnetic therapy" - one based on high-energy pulsed magnetic fields from powerful electromagnets (Malmivuo and Plonsey 1995).  Pulsed magnetic fields are very different from static multipolar magnetic fields, because, via Maxwell's equations, time-varying magnetic fields induce electric fields. 

It's been known for more than a century that electric fields can have pronounced biological effects, particularly on nerve and muscle cells.  Just remember back to your high school biology class and the twitching frog experiments you might have done.  Unpleasant as they might have been to the squeamish, they demonstrated something that science has known since the days of Galvani and his twitching frogs' legs. 

Many years ago the FDA approved the use of pulsed magnetic fields in "bone growth stimulators" for the treatment of fractures that were slow to heal, and research on "magnetic stimulation" -- pulsed magnetic fields applied to the brain or other components of the nervous system -- has grown rapidly in recent years.  Transcranial magnetic stimulation, in which the patient receives hundreds of magnetic field pulses of 1 tesla or more, each only a millisecond in duration, has shown considerable promise as a means of treating depression.  However, these forms of pulsed-field magnetic therapy are based on biological effects of induced electric fields, and are very different from the use of the static fields generated from permanent magnets. 

More studies will also be required before magnetic therapy can hope to be accepted by a majority of the medical community, and some studies to better understand the effects (if any) of magnetic therapy are already underway. 

Not long ago, the U.S. Government's NIH Office of Alternative Medicine gave a million-dollar grant to Dr. Ann Gill Taylor of the School of Nursing of the University of Virginia to study the use of magnets to relieve pain.  "Among other things, she will be testing the effectiveness of magnetic sleep pads in relieving pain in patients suffering from fibromyalgia, a common disease involving joint and muscle pain."

While we wait for the results of these and other studies, does what we know about magnetic fields and the human body make it plausible that magnetic therapy for pain might have a physical basis beyond mind/body effects?   The answer is, to the avowed skeptic, no.  To others, the answer is:  Maybe, but let's wait and see what a number of preliminary studies now underway discover.  And while we wait, let's start thinking about doing a lot more careful and objective research.

The Bottom Line...

"There is no scientific basis to conclude that small, static magnets can relieve pain or influence the course of any disease.  In fact, many of today's products produce no significant magnetic field at or beneath the skin's surface," concludes Dr. Barrett of Quackwatch. 

On the surface, that statement may be "true."  But, as we've mentioned here, there really has been very little scientific study of magnetic therapy.  We simply would not make or support such a statement, because the evidence that can definitively support or refute any such unequivocal assertions isn't there.  Not yet.

A Few Caveats...

A recent Missouri State Supreme Court decision on a Quackwatch-led suit (Dr. Barrett above) aganist a Dr. McDonough, D.O. who has been in practice since 1961 and who used a medical procedure called "chellation" to treat certain patients reveals some disturbing information.   The Missouri court's decision can be read here:

http://www.courts.mo.gov/courts/pubopinions.nsf/ccd96539c3fb13ce8625661f004bc7da
/1bd33b63fa48b5bf86256e4c006c1484?OpenDocument&Highlight=0,McDonagh

In essense, the state supreme court believes that alternative healthcare deserves a fair, honest, and balanced hearing before being condemned or approved. Some observers have wondered why some "skeptic" organizations are so relentless in their attacks on widely accepted alternative healthcare approaches.  A legitimate concern has been raised as to the funding sources and increasingly likely possibility of "undisclosed" backers for some of these "skeptical" organizations that may want to discredit legitimate and well-proven alternative approaches that may complement traditional allopathic medicine. 

In fact, one outcome of the Health Care debate today is the not-surprising revelation that insurance companies and Big Pharma are spending hundreds of millions of tax-free dollars lobbying (some accuse them of "bribing") Congress to back their corporate viewpoint - in direct conflict with the tens of millions of voters who want and need a better solution.  Democracy in action...   Perhaps the Supreme Court and Congress need to simply allow corporations to vote - one vote for every dollar they earn in profit.  That would make it very clear who runs the country, don't you think?  Under that approach, Exxon will have more votes than all American citizens combined.

Questioning Traditional Pseudo-Science & "Scientific Studies"

Among far too many examples of this disturbing "attack" methodology is the recent publication (March 2006) by a British medical authority on the purported benefits of Chiropractic.  Contradicting literally thousands of independent and well-designed studies conducted over the past 40+ years in Europe, the US, Australia, Canada, Japan and many other countries, this study boldly claims that there are no benefits from chiropractic. 

From a personal perspective, as well as from a clinical analysis of the data available,  we think that this British study is completely bogus and without any merit whatsoever, except to illustrate how "bad" science is done. 

As have millions of others, we've used chiropractors for many years and have no doubts whatsoever of the tangible, demonstrable, repeatable, and concrete benefits we've received.  We have also seen first-hand the "benefits" derived from invasive surgery to "correct" spinal problems.  Thanks, but we'll take the non-invasive, and far less expensive and much, much more effective Chiropractic approach. 

Regrettably, far too many "scientific" studies today seem to generate either very disparaging results - or confused, ambiguous, and shaky findings - the "research" on vitamins is a classic case-in-point. 

One study says that taking supplements can be helpful; another says that this is dangerous.  Then, a study comes along that points out the real and quantifiable benefits of taking Vitamin D to reduce the risks of cancer and other chronic diseases.  Followed promptly by a "warning" that exposure to sunlight increases the risks that Vitamin D is supposed to reduce... even though the body produces Vitamin D through exposure to sunlight.

One can only wonder if this trend toward sloppy and conflicting research is merely "poor science" or are there perhaps deeper (economic?) reasons that the attacks on legitimate alternative healthcare are increasing?

The question that must be asked of every healthcare study or pronouncement is: "Just who is funding all these expensive "studies," lawsuits, and media attacks on the alternative/complementary healthcare industry?"  

Like so many other customers, we'd also like some greater clarity in this subject.  After all, acupuncture and many other complementary approaches have been clearly proven to be of medical benefit in actual use by literally tens of thousands of well-designed studies over many decades - as well as successful use by tens of millions of us patients worldwide. 

Disturbingly, recent information published on the Web (2002-2005) has claimed that some "quack-buster" operations may actually be secretly funded by certain insurance, medical, and pharmaceutical companies and other organizations with a vested interest in discrediting legitimate alternative healthcare approaches - for obvious financial reasons, and in spite of strident denials. 

If this allegation is true (and we stress that these are only "unproven allegations" at this point), this kind of secretive "backroom" activity is clearly immoral and unethical.  It may also be illegal - and the various state's Attorneys General should be perhaps be encouraged to investigate. 

At this point, we can only suggest that it is merely reasonable to urge you to seriously question and thoroughly investigate anything that such vocal "quack-buster" Web sites, organizations or individuals have to say about alternative healthcare - unless they fully and truly disclose who's really paying for their very expensive research, legal, and media activities, and what their true financial motives are.  And naturally, we make the very same suggestion about alternative medical care claims.  Know before you go...

We believe firmly in the value of traditional allopathic medicine (the kind your medical doctor was trained in).  If you break an arm, you go to an orthopedic specialist, not an acupuncturist.  If you have a serious illness, please see your medical doctor first  - before you try any alternative approaches. But alternative healthcare solutions with a proven success rate should not be dismissed without proper research.  Nor should you place unwaranted faith in alternatives to traditional medical care. Use a balanced and well-informed approach. That's just common sense.  

That's also why we urge you to see your doctor and get tested for Obstructive Sleep Apnea (OSA) or other sleep disorders if you snore.  We would expect that "quack-buster" and other "alternative healthcare skeptic" organizations also take that same open, cautious, scientifically sound, and methodologically conservative approach.  And, we couldn't agree more with those that do. 

Nothing on this web site should be construed to assume that the SnorEnder is intended to diagnose or treat ANY disease.  Chronic, non-apnea snoring is not generally considered to be a "disease" - just a real irritation for those who must live with it nightly.

IF YOU HAVE SYMPTOMS OF SLEEP APNEA,

PLEASE SEE YOUR DOCTOR IMMEDIATELY!

Given the honest fact that very little scientific research is presently being done to assess the validity of most "magnetic therapy" claims, an informed and cautious approach is one that we certainly recommend.  Reputable analysts perform an important public service through their work, and we hope they continue to question, challenge, test and inform us all.  Their work is vital to creating a more informed and empowered citizen.

However, throughout the world there is a growing body of increasingly credible evidence (both scientifically rigorous and anecdotal) that suggests there may be much more to alternative and complementary healthcare approaches, including acupressure and magnetic therapy, than is generally accepted by either the medical industry and government authorities, or the public-at-large at this time.

Our approach is based on years of empirical observation and extensive R&D, coupled with our backgrounds in healthcare, science, and engineering.  We believe that it may have some beneficial effect on an intractable problem - nocturnal non-apnea snoring.  Of course, as we have stated elsewhere on this web site, you must determine whether this (or any alternative approach) is of value to you.

That's why we offer our ONE YEAR MONEY BACK GUARANTEE.  If the SnorEnder doesn't work for YOU, just mail it back to us and we'll promptly refund 50% of your purchase price (less S&H and Return Merchandise fees).

Our studies indicate (but certainly do not "prove" in a clinical, FDA-approved sense) that the very subtle but measurable magnetic effects produced by the ferro-ceramic and (in some R&D prototypes, neodymium) magnets as we use in the SnorEnder may have an effect at certain acupressure points on the human body.  This is one area of study that indicates a potential for more research.  But we certainly don't think that it is scientific "proof."

The Baylor Study, although interesting, is not where careful, credible studies of magnetic therapy and other potentially interesting alternative healthcare treatments should stop.  At the time each was first explored, there was "no scientific basis" for much of modern medicine, from vaccines to modern surgery and pharmaceuticals.  There may be nothing other than fraud, greed, and deception to "magnetic" therapy.  Or, there may be something more.  Perhaps it's time to find out

__________________________________________________________________________________

If you suffer from a snoring spouse - or you're the one inflicting that suffering on others - perhaps you should consider ordering a SnorEnder right now.  Of course, you could wait another 30 years for researchers to get around to solving your immediate problem.

We accept Visa, MasterCard, American Express, Discover Card and PayPal

ONE YEAR

Money Back Guarantee*

Shipping & Handling (S&H)  fees are not refundable. Total Shipping/Postage charge on invoice includes a Handling Fee.         _____________________________________________________   *SnorEnder Refund Policy:   The products we make and sell are all custom, hand-made items and require significant labor.  We will refund 50% of the purchase price when you return the product to us at the address listed here or on the enclosed instruction brochure that comes with your order.  Shipping & Handling fees are NOT refundable.  We will also charge a $5.00 refund fee because the credit card processors also charge us to issue a refund to your card.  If this is not agreeable to you, please don't order.  Thanks for understanding.   No refunds are given after the ONE YEAR Guarantee period is expired. ____________________

______________________________________________________________________

Bibliography

These are some of the many sources used in this paper, including the Barrett article:

1.  Livingston JD.  Magnetic therapy: Plausible attraction.  Skeptical Inquirer 25-30, 58, 1998.

2.  Ramey DW. Magnetic and electromagnetic therapy. Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 2(1):13-19, 1998.
3.  Vallbona C, Hazelwood CF, Jurida G. Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: A double-blind pilot study.  Archives of Physical and Rehabilitative Medicine 78:1200-1203, 1997.
4.  Caselli MA and others. Evaluation of magnetic foil and PPT Insoles in the treatment of heel pain. Journal of the American Podiatric Medical Association 87:11-16, 1997.
5.  Collacott EA and others. Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain.  JAMA 283:1322-1325, 2000.
6.  Mayrovitz HN and others. Assessment of the short-term effects of a permanent magnet on normal skin blood circulation via laser-Doppler flowmetry.  Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 6(1):9-12, 2002.

7.  Summary of Magnetic Therapy Studies.  http://www.caromont.org/16281.cfm based on the following:

1. Frankel R, Liburdy R. Biological effects of static magnetic fields. In: Polk C, Postow E, eds. Handbook of Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields. 2nd ed. Boca Raton, FL: CRC Press; 1996.

2. Vallbona C, Hazlewood CF, Jurida G. Response of pain to static magnetic fields in postpolio patients: a double blind pilot study. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1997;78:1200?1203.

3. Colbert AP, Markov MS, Banerji M, et al. Magnetic mattress pad use in patients with fibromyalgia: a randomized double-blind pilot study. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 1999;13:19?31.

4. Weintraub M. Magnetic bio-stimulation in painful diabetic peripheral neuropathy: a novel intervention-a randomized, double-placebo crossover study. Am J Pain Manag. 1999;9:8?17.

5. Man D, Man B, Plosker H. The influence of permanent magnetic field therapy on wound healing in suction lipectomy patients: A double-blind study. Plast Reconstr Surg. 1999;104:2261?2266.

6. Collacot EA, Zimmerman JT, White DW, et al. Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a pilot study. JAMA. 2000;283:1322?1325.

7. Brown CS, Parker N, Ling F, et al. Effect of magnets on chronic pelvic pain. Obstet Gynecol. 2000;95:S29.

8. Theodore WH, Hunter K, Chen R, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation for the treatment of seizures: A controlled study. Neurology. 2002;59:560?562.

9. Hinman MR, Ford J, Heyl H. Effects of static magnets on chronic knee pain and physical function: a double-blind study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2002;8:50?55.

10. Engstrom S, Markov MS, McLean MJ, et al. Effects of non-uniform static magnetic fields on the rate of myosin phosphorylation. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002;23:475?479.

11. Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Dyer RH Jr, et al. A double-blind trial of the clinical effects of pulsed electromagnetic fields in osteoarthritis. J Rheumatol. 1993;20:456?460.

12. Trock DH, Bollet AJ, Markoll R. The effect of pulsed electromagnetic fields in the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee and cervical spine. Report of randomized, double blind, placebo controlled trials. J Rheumatol. 1994;21:1903?1911.

13. Richards TL, Lappin MS, Acosta-Urquidi J, et al. Double-blind study of pulsing magnetic field effects on multiple sclerosis. J Altern Complement Med. 1997;3:21?29.

14. Fujishiro T, Enomoto H, Ugawa Y, et al. Magnetic stimulation of the sacral roots for the treatment of stress incontinence: an investigational study and placebo controlled trial. J Urol. 2000;164:1277?1279.

15. Sherman RA, Acosta NM, Robson L. Treatment of migraine with pulsing electromagnetic fields: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Headache. 1999;39:567?575.

16. Pascual-Leone A, Rubio B, Pallardo F, et al. Rapid-rate transcranial magnetic stimulation of the left dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in drug-resistant depression. Lancet. 1996;348:233?237.

17. Klein E, Kreinin I, Chistyakov A, et al. Therapeutic efficacy of right prefrontal slow repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depression: a double-blind controlled study. Arch Gen Psychiatry. 1999;56:315?320.

18. George MS, Wassermann EM, Kimbrell TA, et al. Mood improvement following daily left prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with depression: a placebo-controlled crossover trial. Am J Psychiatry. 1997;154:1752?1756.

19. Garcia-Toro M, Mayol A, Arnillas H, et al. Modest adjunctive benefit with transcranial magnetic stimulation in medication-resistant depression. J Affect Disord. 2001;64:271?275.

20. Szuba MP, O'Reardon JP, Rai AS, et al. Acute mood and thyroid stimulating hormone effects of transcranial magnetic stimulation in major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2001;50:22?27.

21. Teneback CC, Nahas Z, Speer AM, et al. Changes in prefrontal cortex and paralimbic activity in depression following two weeks of daily left prefrontal TMS. J Neuropsychiatry Clin Neurosci. 1999;11:426?435.

22. Grunhaus L, Dannon PN, Schreiber S, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is as effective as electroconvulsive therapy in the treatment of nondelusional major depressive disorder: an open study. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;47:314?324.

23. Kirkcaldie MT, Pridmore SA, Pascual-Leone A. Transcranial magnetic stimulation as therapy for depression and other disorders. Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 1997;31:264?272.

24. Pridmore S. Substitution of rapid transcranial magnetic stimulation treatments for electroconvulsive therapy treatments in a course of electroconvulsive therapy. Depress Anxiety. 2000;12:118?123.

25. Berman RM, Narasimhan M, Sanacora, et al. A randomized clinical trial of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of major depression. Biol Psychiatry. 2000;47:332?337.

26. Tergau F, Naumann U, Paulus W, et al. Low-frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation improves intractable epilepsy. Lancet. 1999;353:2209.

27. Hoffman RE, Boutros NN, Hu S, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation and auditory hallucinations in schizophrenia. Lancet. 2000;355:1073?1075.

28. Rollnik JD, Huber TJ, Mogk H, et al. High frequency repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) of the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex in schizophrenic patients. Neuroreport. 2000;11:4013?4015.

29. Alonso P, Pujol J, Cardoner N, et al. Right prefrontal repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in obsessive-compulsive disorder: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Am J Psychiatry. 2001;158:1143?1145.

30. Pelka RB, Jaenicke C, Gruenwald J. Impulse magnetic-field therapy for erectile dysfunction: a double-blind, placebo-controlled study. Adv Ther. 2002;19:53?60.

31. Colbert AP, Markov MS, Banerji M, et al. Magnetic mattress pad use in patients with fibromyalgia: a randomized double-blind pilot study. J Back Musculoskeletal Rehabilitation. 1999;13:19?31.

32. Loo C, Sachdev P, Elsayed H, et al. Effects of a 2- to 4-week course of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) on neuropsychologic functioning, electroencephalogram, and auditory threshold in depressed patients. Biol Psychiatry. 2001;49:615?623.

33. Van Lake P, Mattioni T. The effect of therapeutic magnet on implantable pacemaker and defibrilattor devices [abstract]. Pacing Clin Electrophysiol. 2000;23:723.

34. Weinberger A, Nyska A, Giler S. Treatment of experimental inflammatory synovitis with continuous magnetic field. Isr J Med Sci. 1996;32:1197?1201.

35. Segal NA, Toda Y, Huston J, et al. Two configurations of static magnetic fields for treating rheumatoid arthritis of the knee: double-blind clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1453?1460.

36. Alfano AP, Taylor AG, Foresman PA, et al. Static magnetic fields for treatment of fibromyalgia: a randomized controlled trial. J Altern Complement Med. 2001;7:53?64.

37. Holcomb RR, Parker RA, Harrison MS. Biomagnetics in the treatment of human pain: past, present, future. Environ Med. 1991;8:24?30.

38. Jacobson JI, Gorman R, Yamanashi WS, et al. Low-amplitude, extremely low frequency magnetic fields for the treatment of osteoarthritic knees: a double-blind clinical study. Altern Ther Health Med. 2001;7:54?60,62?64,66?69.

39. Hasey G. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in the treatment of mood disorder: a review and comparison with electroconvulsive therapy. Can J Psychiatry. 2001;46:720?727.

40. Shimamoto H, Takasaki K, Shigemori M, et al. Therapeutic effect and mechanism of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation in Parkinson's disease. J Neurol. 2001;248(suppl 3):III/48?III/52.

41. Manes F, Jorge R, Morcuende M, et al. A controlled study of repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation as a treatment of depression in the elderly. Int Psychogeriatr. 2001;13:225?231.

42. Carter R, Hall T, Aspy CB, et al. Effectiveness of magnet therapy for treatment of wrist pain attributed to carpal tunnel syndrome. J Fam Pract. 2002;51:38?40.

43. Gmitrov J, Ohkubo C, Okano H. Effect of 0.25 T static magnetic field on microcirculation in rabbits. Bioelectromagnetics. 2002;23:224?229.

44. Martel GF, Andrews SC, Roseboom CG. Comparison of static and placebo magnets on resting forearm blood flow in young, healthy men. J Orthop Sports Phys Ther. 2002;32:518?524.

45. Hong CZ, Lin JC, Bender LF, et al. Magnetic necklace: its therapeutic effectiveness on neck and shoulder pain. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 1982;63:462?466.

46. Brown CS, Ling FW, Wan JY, et al. Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy in chronic pelvic pain: A double-blind pilot study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1581 1587.

47. Nicolakis P, Kollmitzer J, Crevenna R, et al. Pulsed magnetic field therapy for osteoarthritis of the knee?a double-blind sham-controlled trial. Wien Klin Wochenschr. 2002;114:678 684.

48. Dolberg OT, Dannon PN, Schreiber S, et al. Transcranial magnetic stimulation in patients with bipolar depression: a double blind, controlled study. Bipolar Disord. 2002;4:94 95.

49. Janicak PG, Dowd SM, Martis B, et al. Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation versus electroconvulsive therapy for major depression: preliminary results of a randomized trial. Biol Psychiatry. 2002;51:659 667.

50. Boutros NN, Gueorguieva R, Hoffman RE, et al. Lack of a therapeutic effect of a 2-week sub-threshold transcranial magnetic stimulation course for treatment-resistant depression. Psychiatry Res. 2002;113:245 25

51. The Effectiveness and Cost Effectiveness of Chiropractic Management of Low-Back Pain (The Manga Report). Pran Manga and Associates (1993) - University of Ottawa, Canada.

Low Back Pain of Mechanical Origin: Randomized Comparison of Chiropractic and Hospital Outpatient Treatment. Meade, TW et al British Medical Journal - 1990;300:1431-1437.

52.  A primary health-care profession with statutory regulation

Chiropractic is a primary health-care profession that specialises in the diagnosis, treatment and overall management of conditions that are due to mechanical dysfunction of the joints, ligaments, tendons and nerves, particularly those of the spine, and their effects on the nervous system.

Numerous studies throughout the world have shown that chiropractic treatment, including manipulative therapy and spinal adjustment, is both safe and effective.

Below is a selection of research papers of relevance and interest. 

Due to copyright restrictions, it is not possible to reproduce journal articles but you can search the Web to view or download a document which includes all the references and a synopsis where possible.

UK Beam Trial; Back pain, exercise and manipulation (UK BEAM) randomised trial: effectiveness of physical treatments for back pain in primary care. British Medical Journal Nov 2004; 329; 1377 (doi: 10.1136 /bmj. 38282. 669225.AE)

Medical Research Council; 'Low Back pain of mechanical origin: randomised comparison of Chiropractic from hospital outpatient treatment'; Meade et al.

Medical Research Council (Follow-up-study) Trial 'Randomised comparison of Chiropractic and hospital outpatient management for low back pain; results from extended follow up'; Meade et al.

RCGP - Clinical Guidelines for the Management of Acute Low Back Pain (1996, 1999, 2001)

Clinical Standards Advisory Group; Backpain Report 1994.

Acute Back Pain - Primary Care Project; The Wiltshire and Bath Health Commission.

Carter JT, Birrell LN (Editors) 2000. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work - principal recommendations. Faculty of Occupational Medicine. London. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work - leaflet for practitioners. Faculty of Occupational Medicine. London. 2000. Waddell G, Burton AK 2000. Occupational health guidelines for the management of low back pain at work - evidence review. Faculty of Occupational Medicine. London.

Chiropractic Treatment in Workers with Musculoskeletal Complaints; Mark P Blokland DC et al;Journal of the Neuromusculoskeletal System vol 8 No 1, Spring 2000

House of Lords Select Committee on Science and Technology report on Complementary and Alternative Medicine November 2000

53.  A contradictory viewpoint: there are a number of Web sites (just search Google) that discuss serious side-effects of spinal manipluation by chirpractors and others, including stroke, paralysis and death.  Although, if you examine the published data, almost all cases of damage due to "spinal manipulation" were in fact caused by licensed physicians (and even a dentist in one case!), inadequately trained masseurs, or even nurses doing things that they had little or no formal training in.  We recommend that you seek help from the appropriately trained and licensed healthcare professionals: go to a surgeon for surgery; a dentist for dentistry, a chiropractor for chiropractic.  A chiropractor can't fix your broken arm and a surgeon doesn't fill cavities.  That's just common sense isn't it?  ...stripped of all hypocrisy and mis-information.

54. MSN Article on Magnetic Therapy:

URL: http://health.msn.com/health-topics/mental-health/articlepage.aspx?cp-documentid=100158403

These references should be carefully considered because, as in every medical field, there are good and bad practitioners.  Again, there is no substitute for becoming well-informed before you use any healthcare approach.

 If you snore, you may have Obstructive Sleep Apnea.  ONLY your healthcare professional can diagnose this potentially life-threatening sleep disorder.

_______________

Disclaimer:  Statements not evaluated by the FDA.  Not intended for treatment of sleep apnea or any disease.  Sleep apnea is a potentially life-threatening sleep disorder.  If you think that you may have symptoms of sleep apnea (or if you return our product), you should see your doctor immediately.  No medical or health claims are expressed or implied.  Product intended for comfort only.

Regrettably, we cannot accept print & call orders. 

All product orders MUST be placed with the

SECURE 256-bit shopping cart.

 Page last modified on:  10/14/2009