Here's a short extract:
The article also pointed out the absurd lengths that the sceptics will go to, in order to justify their position.: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 MPS blog then demolishes that argument:“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.”
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.
