Recently
we came across this question and decided it would be best to post some more
information regarding this. This is what we were asked.
Q.
I recently came across a new kind of sports enhancement bracelet.
Apparently it emits positive ions that are good for you. The bracelet is also a
watch. There are credible scientific studies on positive ion therapy and
apparently positive ions are good for you. They are used to treat seasonal
affective disorder (although the result of the study does go on to cast doubt
about its findings).
The
question is whether it is possible for positive ions to affect your good health
and if so whether a bracelet can deliver enough positive ions to have any
effect at all. It would also be beneficial if you have any links to medical
studies on these devices.
So
here is the answer we provided with a little more information.
A.
It's
too early to tell for sure
But again, keep in mind that machines are required for this process, not
a plastic bracelet with a hologram on it.
What sort of demo was done at the expo? Was it Applied Kinesiology by any chance? That is a
well known bit of deliberate deception.
A quote from the first link:
Power Balance bracelets promise to improve balance, strength and
flexibility and feature some lofty endorsers: Shaquille O’Neal, Drew Bree's and
Nicole Branagh, an Olympian from the University of Minnesota. Yet the maker of
the $30 bracelets admitted this week that there’s no scientific evidence that
the things actually work.
The producers of Power Balance bracelets have sold them by the millions
around the globe. They adorn the celebrity wrists of Robert de Niro and Kate
Middleton, among others. The hologram-embedded rubbery bracelets “work with
your body’s natural energy field” in ways similar to “concepts behind many
Eastern philosophies,” the Power Balance website explains.
These claims got the attention of the Australian Competition and
Consumer Commission, which compelled Power Balance to issue a letter that was
published in various media outlets Down Under.
“We admit that there is no credible scientific evidence that supports
our claims,” the company wrote. “Therefore we engaged in misleading conduct.”
Also, while not a strict debunking of the exact device you link
to, I found this interesting write up at JREF. I think the quackwatch link may
provide you with additional information.
Written by Brandon Peterson
Wednesday, 17 March 2010 10:32
I recently had the opportunity to attend The Amaz!ng Adventure 5. While
at Grand Turks, our final port, I was wandering through the duty-free shop
looking for deals on liquor (Jack Daniel’s Single Barrel for $39!) when I
happened upon a tableful of woo. Seeing as I was a medical student on a
skeptical cruise, I had to stop and have my wife help make this video.
In my off-the-cuff video, I didn’t have the opportunity to mention the
lack of scientific evidence for their claims. Even if the magnetic field did
penetrate the skin, it still would not stimulate blood flow because the amount
of iron in blood is far too small. If blood did have a strong magnetic
attraction, your body would explode in an MRI (which would be cool, I admit).
I also didn’t have time to discuss the clinical trials that have been
performed to evaluate efficacy. As usual with CAM research, earlier poor
quality studies were weakly positive (1,2), while more recent high quality
studies and meta-analyses are definitively negative (3,4,5).
I also forgot to mention the numerous court rulings in the late ‘90s and
early ‘00s against companies making false claims about these products. This
issue is discussed extensively on Quackwatch for those interested (6). In a
nutshell, companies that fraudulently claimed to treat specific illnesses
(arthritis, diabetic neuropathy, migraines, etc.) were sued. Now, they use
nebulous phrases such as “support the healing process” or “restore natural
energy.” You know, phrases that have not been evaluated by the Federal Drug
Administration and are not designed to diagnose, treat or blah blah blah.
In short, magnet therapy is a great case study of CAM. The lack of
scientific plausibility, the progression of the medical literature, and the FDA
Miranda Rights statement are all characteristic of CAM. And if a lowly medical
student can debunk it is less than a minute, how good can it really be?
1. Harlow T, Greaves C, White
A, et al. Randomised controlled trial of magnetic bracelets for relieving pain
in osteoarthritis of the hip and knee. BMJ 2004; 329:1450-1454
2. 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
1997; 78:1200-1203.
3. Winemiller MH and others.
Effect of magnetic vs sham-magnetic insoles on plantar heel pain: a randomized
controlled trial. JAMA2003; 290:1474-1478.
4. Pittler MH. Static magnets
for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.
CMAJ 2007; 177(7): 736-42.
5. Cepeda MS, Carr DB,
Sarquis T, et al. Static magnetic therapy does not decrease pain or opioid
requirements: a randomized double blind trial. Anesth Analg 2007; 104. 290-294.
I will note that there are things that electromagnetic fields can
do to the human body. In particular the neural effects if placed about the head
(see God
Helmet).
However, the main thing to do when dealing with claims like this is to ask
yourself: By what mechanism is this device claiming to work? How does this
align with what we know about biology, chemistry, physics, etc.? Does the
claimant use language that would be high on the crankpot index?
If
you are starting to see a trend here, that is because there is one. There is no
known mechanism for these things to work, and their claims are well beyond what
the science would indicate.