Strength or beauty

I've been fighting a pitched battle with my fellow customers of magnetic bracelets as to what's more important: strength or beauty. I 'm not talking about Superman versus Wonder Woman here - although I know which one I prefer - I'm talking about the criteria for choosing which magnetic bracelet to buy.

Dan Brown's character Robert Langdon (of The Da Vinci Code fame) would have a field day discussing the symbolism here. So, indeed, would Umberto Eco - probably. The male versus the female principle. The Yin versus Yang. Mars versus Venus. I think you get the picture.

But surely, you say, magnetic bracelets have both. The magnets have the power to heal; the beauty of the bracelets have the power to soothe the eye.

Yes indeed. But when you have such a vast range to choose from - as you do if you buy from the Magnetic Products Store - then you have to decide what is important to you when making your decision which to buy.

My advice is always the same: buy what looks nice to you. Don't count the magnets. Don't measure their strength. And don't write a long rambling inquiry email - or even a short one - asking customer care to tell you which one is the strongest. That would be like asking a mother which of her children is the most intelligent.

By the one that looks nicest to you! And if you can't make up your mind, buy two or three.

Magnetic therapy challenges the sceptics

The blog of Magnetic Products Store has taken up the challenge of the sceptics, with a hard-hitting post about Wikipedia's article on magnet therapy, describing it as "one-sided."

Here's a short extract:

One of the good things about Wikipedia is that one can check the history of an article to see not only what was added and when, but also what was removed. And a search of that history is revealing. For example, it was pointed out a few months ago, in an addition to the Wikipedia entry, that one of the articles cited as evidence that magnetic therapy doesn't work, in fact contains the sentence: “For osteoarthritis, the evidence is insufficient to exclude a clinically important benefit, which creates an opportunity for further investigation.” (Emphasis added)

Unfortunately, this attempt to give balance to the Wikipedia article, was unceremoniously rebuffed. The qualifying sentence was removed from the Wikipedia entry by the person who controls the entry – even though the added sentence was only quoting from the same article that the main author of the Wikipedia entry had already cited! This too was pointed out, but the gatekeeper remained unmoved. There followed an amicable exchange in the discussion page in which the gatekeeper sought to bolster their case by citing a 2012 study on magnetic therapy in osteoarthritis.

The article also pointed out the absurd lengths that the sceptics will go to, in order to justify their position.:

“Perhaps subjects with magnetic bracelets subconsciously detected a tiny drag when the bracelets were near ferromagnetic surfaces (which are ubiquitous in modern life), and this distracted or otherwise influenced the perceived pain.”

The MPS blog then demolishes that argument:

This is even more outlandish. It implies that the subject, in a double-blind study, initially presumed that they did not have a real magnet, subconsciously discovered that they did and then subconsciously felt better because of that discovery! And this is considered more scientific than straightforward acceptance of the trial data at face value?

 This pretty much sums up the sceptics and their own lack of reason and rationality.

It appears that we have a little more to say. And say it, we shall.