Glaucoma Symptoms
Glaucoma Disease » Glaucoma Symptoms » magnets and glaucoma

magnets and glaucoma

Question:

Baloney – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -medi…@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <38843450.4101A…@citrus.infi.net>, >   Ritz <kr…@citrus.infi.net> wrote: > > No… not for glaucoma, but for.. ARTHURITIS ..and Osteoporosis. I > > consider them a hoax. > > I found no benefits what so ever. Helga > It is sad that someone tries this, but has no info as to how to use a > magnet, or even to get the right kind.  I have never read that magnets > were useful for osteoporosis, although they may be "helpful." > But surely it would not be something you could see quickly. > It has been throughly established that they work for arthritis.  One 99 > cent magnet from Radio Shack, with you establishing the neg. pole (the > side which your N compass needle will point to), can be taped in place > for several days for you to see.  I have no idea what you used, but the > bioplar magnets help you to get more mobility but don’t do much for > reducing the calcium build up or inflamation. To get a permanent benefit > you need all neg. And you need to use a reasonable size and strengy > magnet for a reas. time. > Because magnets are bulky to put on finger joints, I use the strongest > kind, neodymium, there and at least 1/2" dia by 1/5" thick, and leave it > there for weeks, but you can move it about on the top, and sides of the > joint. Of course you need to also exercise the joint from time to time. > Magnets are not a "hoax."  What they put out is something you would > cause your instantaneous death if it was somehow removed from your body. > Magnetic fields are critical to health. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Response:

Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for glaucoma?

Response:

In article <388639DB.721B3…@sprynet.com>,   Donald Singleton <donal…@sprynet.com> wrote: > I object to the use of alt.support.glaucoma as an advertising medium for > products, particularly products that are of what I consider questionable > efficacy.  Somehow I believe that if magnets were cured or alleviated > the symptoms of all the diseases listed at the magnapak site — where > such magnets are for sale — the world wouldn’t need to be reminded at > this late date.

The fact that magnets (more properly the field, usually the negative one, from a magnet or from your body, naturally), DOES work for all these things is one of the biggest impediments to this being accepted. People do not realize that this is basic, fundamental physiology of the body. We would see all sorts of problems in our bodies if we were slowly deprived of oxygen, and when it was replaced these things would improve, and we have no problem with that because we KNOW that we need oxygen! We do not know that we need this force we get from the earth, and through our body’s limited capacity to make it through oxidation, and we do not know either that the earth is loosing its magnetic strength at an alarming rate. Still, it is true. What is someone to do who knows that this works for all these things? Is he to pick just few?  The Nikken co. does this, but they have their reasons, because they market through people who for the most part have little medical knowledge.  And, some, accustomed to the way "other" medicines work, assume that because they work for one thing means they are for that thing alone. I do not sell any magnets or books, etc.  Someone needs to be free to tell the truth, and not have the FTC jumping on his back because the studies have not been done for most of these applications.  (And we need someone to tell, so the studies can get done). The best thing is to find out, rather than to speculate on why it should not work.  Every individual has too much to gain to overlook this. As I have mentioned in many other posts, I have found the book "Discovery of Magnetic Health," by Washnis to be the most unviased, objective, and well researched book on this subject. It is obvious that what Magna-Pak has done is to take the short treatments given in the little book, "The Invisable Force," by Rinker. He sort of combined the wisdom of two or three writers to come up with this. His treatment of Bell’s Palsy is one that I really question, and I successfully did the opposite in treating my own.  (I used the negative pole instead of the positive one, and I would be afraid to use the positive and stimulate the viral agent that causes the disease). But anyway, the point is that they did not invent all these cures.  They took this from an author who took them from other authors, and there have been many books over the past 20 years, and there have been some compelling studies, mostly on animals, by Albert Roy Davis, achieving very good results–roughly 90% cures on a wide variety of cancers, for instance, and these were replicated, but, as this was not something a company can make serious money with no one undertook the expensive tests on humans necessary to prove the effectiveness of magnetic fields for a very wide range of human conditions. The Russians, on the other hand use this extensively, and it is done with pulsing equipment, rather than solid state magnets.  They ignored Davis’ research on the opposite nature of the two poles, however, and their therapy works (probably) by simply making up the bipolar magnetic field deficit in the body (so the body itself can convert what it receives and use it as needed). This is not as effective, but still works. Magnetic therapy is approved by major developed countries outside our hemisphere for government and private health ins. payments for at least some conditions. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Well, Sir. I am not a Magnet Expert.  But I do share my experience. I am also a Pharmacist and  I am knowledgeable in chemistry and  botany plus a few more  things.  I would never ever recommend any herbal therapy for the treatment of glaucoma. But, besides Marijuana I could name a few more. Are they beneficial? Not that I know of since I have never tried the MARIJUANA.. And no, I am not on this site for some kind of( what do you call THAT CONTEST.)  Helga

Response:

I object to the use of alt.support.glaucoma as an advertising medium for products, particularly products that are of what I consider questionable efficacy.  Somehow I believe that if magnets were cured or alleviated the symptoms of all the diseases listed at the magnapak site — where such magnets are for sale — the world wouldn’t need to be reminded at this late date. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -magna_…@my-deja.com wrote: > Hello, there is a page posted on using magnetic therapy for glaucoma > here: http://www.magnapak.com/magnetic-therapy/ > In article <20000118000307.04109.00000…@ng-cd1.aol.com>, >   ee…@aol.com (EEJR1) wrote: > > Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for > glaucoma? > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Response:

Hello, there is a page posted on using magnetic therapy for glaucoma here: http://www.magnapak.com/magnetic-therapy/ In article <20000118000307.04109.00000…@ng-cd1.aol.com>,   ee…@aol.com (EEJR1) wrote: > Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for

glaucoma? Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Sounds like pixie dust to me.  But still, I’d love to know how one might demonstrate the "paramagnetic" qualities of water. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -medi…@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <20000118000307.04109.00000…@ng-cd1.aol.com>, >   ee…@aol.com (EEJR1) wrote: > > Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for glaucoma? > Wm. H. Philpott, M.D. has a book called "Biomagnetic Manual." > In it he covers a wide range of conditions treatable with > magnets.  For Glaucoma he puts the magnet (using the negative > side to you), at the side, that is back from the corner of your > eve, going towards you ear.  The reason for this is that there > is a "pressure relief valve" about there in the eyeball.  Water > is paramagnetic, that is barely magnetic, and a mag. charge > wears off quickly. > So you can attract water, (and the fluid in the eye), with the > neg. pole of the magnet. > For other eye conditions there are glasses which have "lenses > made of flexible magnetic sheet material.  This particular type > is magnetized "conventionally," that is just one pole on each > side, and the neg. is towards your eyes.  There are several > holes drilled in each lens for you to see with. > This is to treat the retina mainly, but should provide some mild > anti aging benefits to the whole eye.  The neg. field works to > neutralize free radicals.  For instance in an oxygen free > radical, you have all the various rings of electrons, and each > ring they are spinning counterclockwise, except the outside ring > contains just one electron, and it is going the other way.  That > makes it unstable, ready to link on to something else and that > is what causes the damage.  But the neg. field will cause it to > spin along with the rest, counterclockwise, and not misbehave. > I suggest you consult the book by Philpott.  A great overview of > mag therapy is "Discovery of Mag. Health," by Washnis.  He has > digests of Philpott’s and other doctors’ therapies and results > of research and a lot more in that book. > Also, I would suggest common sense.  You should be able to feel the > magnetic pull on your eye right away, but certainly don’t keep at it if > you get real pain (or you could alternate on and off rapidly, or adjust > the magnet by putting something beteen it and you, or use a weaker > magnet. Don’t use the positive side.  You might experiment with a > bipolar magnet, but you would be "on your own."  It might work.  But you > don’t use a large bipolar on the brain area for the same reason you > don’t use all pos., and that is that it is stimulatory and causes excess > serotonin, etc. production.  Pos. is stressful too, and will speed up > the brain waves. Elsewhere, in the Cardiology forum I published a > proposed experiment to demonstrate this.  An EEG is needed to do this. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Response:

Using several different search engines, I checked for Bisvas Shutanto Kumar; and for Listopadova NA, neither of which I recognized.  All came back with no results. Could you direct me to these sources, Mr. Bain? – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -John Bain wrote: > Here’s a study from Medline on glaucoma and magnotherapy > Possibilities of magnetotherapy in stabilization of visual function in > patients with glaucoma > Bisvas Shutanto Kumar; Listopadova NA > Vestn Oftalmol, 112(1):6-8 1996 Jan-Mar > Abstract   Courses of magnetotherapy (MT) using ATOS device with 33 mT > magnetic field induction were administered to 31 patients (43 eyes) > with primary open-angle glaucoma with compensated intraocular pressure. > The operation mode was intermittent, with 1.0 to 1.5 Hz field rotation > frequency by 6 radii. The procedure is administered to a patient in a > sitting posture with magnetic inductor held before the eye. The > duration of a session is 10 min, a course consists of 10 sessions. > Untreated eyes (n = 15) of the same patients were examined for control. > The patients were examined before and 4 to 5 months after MT course. > Vision acuity improved by 0.16 diopters, on an average, in 29 eyes > (96.7%) out of 30 with vision acuity below 1.0 before treatment. > Visocontrastometry was carried out using Visokontrastometer-DT device > with spatial frequency range from 0.4 to 19 cycle/degree (12 > frequencies) and 125 x 125 monitor. The orientation of lattices was > horizontal and vertical. The contrasts ranged from 0.03 to 0.9 (12 > levels). MT brought about an improvement of spatial contrast > sensitivity by at least 7 values of 12 levels in 22 (84.6%) out of 26 > eyes and was unchanged in 4 eyes. Visual field was examined using > Humphry automated analyzer. A 120-point threshold test was used. After > a course of MT, visual field deficit decreased by at least 10% in 31 > (72%) out of 43 eyes, increased in 3, and was unchanged in 9 eyes; on > an average, visual field deficit decreased by 22.4% vs. the initial > value. After 4 to 5 months the changes in the vision acuity and visual > field deficit were negligible. In controls these parameters did not > appreciably change over the entire follow-up period. > Not proof, but worth following up. > Best wishes > — > John Bain > UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor > http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html > Surround Sound for Television > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Response:

What is the negative pole of a magnet? Is it the magnetic north or south? Magnetism always occurs in pairs, a north and a south pole.  If a material encounters a magnetic field its particles may rotate and then be attracted to either a north or south pole. Magnetic therapy sounds like hocus pocus to me.  Is there solid statistcal proof of its worth?   Steve

Response:

While visual acuity and contrast perception are important in vision, neither are normally considered to be radically affected by glaucoma. As far as the field data is concerned, we are all aware of how variable fields can be which is why it is so difficult to establish glaucomatous progression quickly. The sample is minute and the results effectively meaningless in terms of the conventional understanding of fields, also no data is given regarding the intraocular pressure despite it being understood and accepted that this alone is the major modifiable factor in glaucoma. Again, don’t forget that glaucomatous damage is permanent. Never discontinue glaucoma medication without full discussion of the consequences of the decision with your ophthalmologist. — David Wright MSAE Chief Executive, International Glaucoma Association IGA Web Site – http://www.iga.org.uk/home.htm While we are pleased to offer the above information, it is not possible for the International Glaucoma Association to advise on an individual patient’s eye condition or treatment as this has to be the role of their own doctor or eye specialist who knows the full details of their particular case. Any comments above should therefore viewed as general observations. ———- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In article <86327u$3k…@nnrp1.deja.com>, John Bain <JBai…@aol.com> wrote: > Here’s a study from Medline on glaucoma and magnotherapy > Possibilities of magnetotherapy in stabilization of visual function in > patients with glaucoma > Bisvas Shutanto Kumar; Listopadova NA > Vestn Oftalmol, 112(1):6-8 1996 Jan-Mar > Abstract   Courses of magnetotherapy (MT) using ATOS device with 33 mT > magnetic field induction were administered to 31 patients (43 eyes) > with primary open-angle glaucoma with compensated intraocular pressure. > The operation mode was intermittent, with 1.0 to 1.5 Hz field rotation > frequency by 6 radii. The procedure is administered to a patient in a > sitting posture with magnetic inductor held before the eye. The > duration of a session is 10 min, a course consists of 10 sessions. > Untreated eyes (n = 15) of the same patients were examined for control. > The patients were examined before and 4 to 5 months after MT course. > Vision acuity improved by 0.16 diopters, on an average, in 29 eyes > (96.7%) out of 30 with vision acuity below 1.0 before treatment. > Visocontrastometry was carried out using Visokontrastometer-DT device > with spatial frequency range from 0.4 to 19 cycle/degree (12 > frequencies) and 125 x 125 monitor. The orientation of lattices was > horizontal and vertical. The contrasts ranged from 0.03 to 0.9 (12 > levels). MT brought about an improvement of spatial contrast > sensitivity by at least 7 values of 12 levels in 22 (84.6%) out of 26 > eyes and was unchanged in 4 eyes. Visual field was examined using > Humphry automated analyzer. A 120-point threshold test was used. After > a course of MT, visual field deficit decreased by at least 10% in 31 > (72%) out of 43 eyes, increased in 3, and was unchanged in 9 eyes; on > an average, visual field deficit decreased by 22.4% vs. the initial > value. After 4 to 5 months the changes in the vision acuity and visual > field deficit were negligible. In controls these parameters did not > appreciably change over the entire follow-up period. > Not proof, but worth following up. > Best wishes > — > John Bain > UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor > http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html > Surround Sound for Television > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Response:

  Donald Singleton <donal…@sprynet.com> wrote: > Using several different search engines, I checked for Bisvas Shutanto > Kumar; and for Listopadova NA, neither of which I recognized.  All came > back with no results. Could you direct me to these sources, Mr. Bain?

I used Medscape and searched for magnetotherapy and glaucoma.   Popped up straight away. These references may be of use, I snipped them off the study.   By the way, there are several optical studies there, you might find others of interest. Language  Rus Unique Identifier 96250941 ———————————————————————– MESH Headings Aged ; Aged, 80 and over ; Comparative Study ; English Abstract ; Follow-Up Studies ; Glaucoma, Open-Angle *TH ; Human ; Magnetics *TU ; Middle Age ; Time Factors ; Vision Tests ; Visual Acuity * ; Visual Fields * ———————————————————————– Publication Type JOURNAL ARTICLE ISSN 0042-465X Country of Publication RUSSIA Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Here’s a study from Medline on glaucoma and magnotherapy Possibilities of magnetotherapy in stabilization of visual function in patients with glaucoma Bisvas Shutanto Kumar; Listopadova NA Vestn Oftalmol, 112(1):6-8 1996 Jan-Mar Abstract   Courses of magnetotherapy (MT) using ATOS device with 33 mT magnetic field induction were administered to 31 patients (43 eyes) with primary open-angle glaucoma with compensated intraocular pressure. The operation mode was intermittent, with 1.0 to 1.5 Hz field rotation frequency by 6 radii. The procedure is administered to a patient in a sitting posture with magnetic inductor held before the eye. The duration of a session is 10 min, a course consists of 10 sessions. Untreated eyes (n = 15) of the same patients were examined for control. The patients were examined before and 4 to 5 months after MT course. Vision acuity improved by 0.16 diopters, on an average, in 29 eyes (96.7%) out of 30 with vision acuity below 1.0 before treatment. Visocontrastometry was carried out using Visokontrastometer-DT device with spatial frequency range from 0.4 to 19 cycle/degree (12 frequencies) and 125 x 125 monitor. The orientation of lattices was horizontal and vertical. The contrasts ranged from 0.03 to 0.9 (12 levels). MT brought about an improvement of spatial contrast sensitivity by at least 7 values of 12 levels in 22 (84.6%) out of 26 eyes and was unchanged in 4 eyes. Visual field was examined using Humphry automated analyzer. A 120-point threshold test was used. After a course of MT, visual field deficit decreased by at least 10% in 31 (72%) out of 43 eyes, increased in 3, and was unchanged in 9 eyes; on an average, visual field deficit decreased by 22.4% vs. the initial value. After 4 to 5 months the changes in the vision acuity and visual field deficit were negligible. In controls these parameters did not appreciably change over the entire follow-up period. Not proof, but worth following up. Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

In article <38843450.4101A…@citrus.infi.net>,   Ritz <kr…@citrus.infi.net> wrote: > No… not for glaucoma, but for.. ARTHURITIS ..and Osteoporosis. I > consider them a hoax. > I found no benefits what so ever. Helga

It is sad that someone tries this, but has no info as to how to use a magnet, or even to get the right kind.  I have never read that magnets were useful for osteoporosis, although they may be "helpful." But surely it would not be something you could see quickly. It has been throughly established that they work for arthritis.  One 99 cent magnet from Radio Shack, with you establishing the neg. pole (the side which your N compass needle will point to), can be taped in place for several days for you to see.  I have no idea what you used, but the bioplar magnets help you to get more mobility but don’t do much for reducing the calcium build up or inflamation. To get a permanent benefit you need all neg. And you need to use a reasonable size and strengy magnet for a reas. time. Because magnets are bulky to put on finger joints, I use the strongest kind, neodymium, there and at least 1/2" dia by 1/5" thick, and leave it there for weeks, but you can move it about on the top, and sides of the joint. Of course you need to also exercise the joint from time to time. Magnets are not a "hoax."  What they put out is something you would cause your instantaneous death if it was somehow removed from your body. Magnetic fields are critical to health. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

  electr…@aol.com (ELECTRPOW) wrote: >If a material > encounters a magnetic field its particles may rotate and then be attracted to > either a north or south pole.

Unless it’s diamagnetic in which case it’s repelled by both. > Magnetic therapy sounds like hocus pocus to me. > Is there solid statistical > proof of its worth?

Ive found over 130 positive studies on Medline and only 8 negative studies.   There are replicated studies on fractures and on dental water conditioning. Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

  "David J Wright" <d.wri…@iga.org.uk> wrote: > Again, don’t forget that glaucomatous damage is permanent. Never discontinue > glaucoma medication without full discussion of the consequences of the > decision with your ophthalmologist.

Completly agree, magnotherapy is not an alternative therapy, but a complementary therapy to be used in conjunction with existing therepies. I do not understand the study I posted, it’s just one of several I’ve found on optical problems on medline.   If you wish to look for others, then search under magnetotherapy, the Russian term for magnotherapy.Best wishes — John Bain UK TV Sound Director, magnotherapy user & distributor http://members.aol.com/JBainSI/Magnotherapy.html Surround Sound for Television Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

In article <862ls0$6r…@barcode.tesco.net>,   "David J Wright" <d.wri…@iga.org.uk> wrote: > The drainage of aqueous fluid from the eye occurs primarily through the > trabecular meshwork at the front of the eye. Don’t what ever you do > discontinue your glaucoma medication until and unless magnetic therapy has > gone through the same large scale double masked trials that are required of > conventional therapy. Don’t forget that any damage done by glaucoma is > permanent and cannot be reversed. > — > David Wright MSAE > Chief Executive, International Glaucoma Associatio

new mes. from "medimag": Certainly the conventional therapy should be continued. Magnetic therapy is "complementary" therapy.  Aparently Dr. Philpott believes the fluid can be best drained from the side, but it could be an assumption taken from a very small number of observations. The benefits listed in the study that John Bain posted might have been achieved as well from people who did not have Glaucoma (and almost surely can). Philpott and others do not recommend long term treatment, but rather such as 15 minute periods.  However, this has to do with the gauss strength, and the size of the magnet.  I think the periods are generally shorter than ideal. I do not mind the gentle warm feeling from the magnet’s pull for a while, but I would not continue if there were pain (and I don’t mean to infer that is likely.  I just don’t know). – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> IGA Web Site – http://www.iga.org.uk/home.htm > While we are pleased to offer the above information, it is not possible for > the International Glaucoma Association to advise on an individual patient’s > eye condition or treatment as this has to be the role of their own doctor or > eye specialist who knows the full details of their particular case. Any > comments above should therefore viewed as general observations. > ———- > In article <862gkv$m3…@nnrp1.deja.com>, medi…@my-deja.com wrote: > > In article <20000118000307.04109.00000…@ng-cd1.aol.com>, > >   ee…@aol.com (EEJR1) wrote: > >> Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for glaucoma? > > Wm. H. Philpott, M.D. has a book called "Biomagnetic Manual." > > In it he covers a wide range of conditions treatable with > > magnets.  For Glaucoma he puts the magnet (using the negative > > side to you), at the side, that is back from the corner of your > > eve, going towards you ear.  The reason for this is that there > > is a "pressure relief valve" about there in the eyeball.  Water > > is paramagnetic, that is barely magnetic, and a mag. charge > > wears off quickly. > > So you can attract water, (and the fluid in the eye), with the > > neg. pole of the magnet. > > For other eye conditions there are glasses which have "lenses > > made of flexible magnetic sheet material.  This particular type > > is magnetized "conventionally," that is just one pole on each > > side, and the neg. is towards your eyes.  There are several > > holes drilled in each lens for you to see with. > > This is to treat the retina mainly, but should provide some mild > > anti aging benefits to the whole eye.  The neg. field works to > > neutralize free radicals.  For instance in an oxygen free > > radical, you have all the various rings of electrons, and each > > ring they are spinning counterclockwise, except the outside ring > > contains just one electron, and it is going the other way.  That > > makes it unstable, ready to link on to something else and that > > is what causes the damage.  But the neg. field will cause it to > > spin along with the rest, counterclockwise, and not misbehave. > > I suggest you consult the book by Philpott.  A great overview of > > mag therapy is "Discovery of Mag. Health," by Washnis.  He has > > digests of Philpott’s and other doctors’ therapies and results > > of research and a lot more in that book. > > Also, I would suggest common sense.  You should be able to feel the > > magnetic pull on your eye right away, but certainly don’t keep at it if > > you get real pain (or you could alternate on and off rapidly, or adjust > > the magnet by putting something beteen it and you, or use a weaker > > magnet. Don’t use the positive side.  You might experiment with a > > bipolar magnet, but you would be "on your own."  It might work.  But you > > don’t use a large bipolar on the brain area for the same reason you > > don’t use all pos., and that is that it is stimulatory and causes excess > > serotonin, etc. production.  Pos. is stressful too, and will speed up > > the brain waves. Elsewhere, in the Cardiology forum I published a > > proposed experiment to demonstrate this.  An EEG is needed to do this. > > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > > Before you buy.

Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

No… not for glaucoma, but for.. ARTHURITIS ..and Osteoporosis. I consider them a hoax. I found no benefits what so ever. Helga

Response:

The drainage of aqueous fluid from the eye occurs primarily through the trabecular meshwork at the front of the eye. Don’t what ever you do discontinue your glaucoma medication until and unless magnetic therapy has gone through the same large scale double masked trials that are required of conventional therapy. Don’t forget that any damage done by glaucoma is permanent and cannot be reversed. — David Wright MSAE Chief Executive, International Glaucoma Association IGA Web Site – http://www.iga.org.uk/home.htm While we are pleased to offer the above information, it is not possible for the International Glaucoma Association to advise on an individual patient’s eye condition or treatment as this has to be the role of their own doctor or eye specialist who knows the full details of their particular case. Any comments above should therefore viewed as general observations. ———- – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -In article <862gkv$m3…@nnrp1.deja.com>, medi…@my-deja.com wrote: > In article <20000118000307.04109.00000…@ng-cd1.aol.com>, >   ee…@aol.com (EEJR1) wrote: >> Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for glaucoma? > Wm. H. Philpott, M.D. has a book called "Biomagnetic Manual." > In it he covers a wide range of conditions treatable with > magnets.  For Glaucoma he puts the magnet (using the negative > side to you), at the side, that is back from the corner of your > eve, going towards you ear.  The reason for this is that there > is a "pressure relief valve" about there in the eyeball.  Water > is paramagnetic, that is barely magnetic, and a mag. charge > wears off quickly. > So you can attract water, (and the fluid in the eye), with the > neg. pole of the magnet. > For other eye conditions there are glasses which have "lenses > made of flexible magnetic sheet material.  This particular type > is magnetized "conventionally," that is just one pole on each > side, and the neg. is towards your eyes.  There are several > holes drilled in each lens for you to see with. > This is to treat the retina mainly, but should provide some mild > anti aging benefits to the whole eye.  The neg. field works to > neutralize free radicals.  For instance in an oxygen free > radical, you have all the various rings of electrons, and each > ring they are spinning counterclockwise, except the outside ring > contains just one electron, and it is going the other way.  That > makes it unstable, ready to link on to something else and that > is what causes the damage.  But the neg. field will cause it to > spin along with the rest, counterclockwise, and not misbehave. > I suggest you consult the book by Philpott.  A great overview of > mag therapy is "Discovery of Mag. Health," by Washnis.  He has > digests of Philpott’s and other doctors’ therapies and results > of research and a lot more in that book. > Also, I would suggest common sense.  You should be able to feel the > magnetic pull on your eye right away, but certainly don’t keep at it if > you get real pain (or you could alternate on and off rapidly, or adjust > the magnet by putting something beteen it and you, or use a weaker > magnet. Don’t use the positive side.  You might experiment with a > bipolar magnet, but you would be "on your own."  It might work.  But you > don’t use a large bipolar on the brain area for the same reason you > don’t use all pos., and that is that it is stimulatory and causes excess > serotonin, etc. production.  Pos. is stressful too, and will speed up > the brain waves. Elsewhere, in the Cardiology forum I published a > proposed experiment to demonstrate this.  An EEG is needed to do this. > Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ > Before you buy.

Response:

In article <20000118000307.04109.00000…@ng-cd1.aol.com>,   ee…@aol.com (EEJR1) wrote: > Just wondering….has anyone tried using magnetic applications for glaucoma?

Wm. H. Philpott, M.D. has a book called "Biomagnetic Manual." In it he covers a wide range of conditions treatable with magnets.  For Glaucoma he puts the magnet (using the negative side to you), at the side, that is back from the corner of your eve, going towards you ear.  The reason for this is that there is a "pressure relief valve" about there in the eyeball.  Water is paramagnetic, that is barely magnetic, and a mag. charge wears off quickly. So you can attract water, (and the fluid in the eye), with the neg. pole of the magnet. For other eye conditions there are glasses which have "lenses made of flexible magnetic sheet material.  This particular type is magnetized "conventionally," that is just one pole on each side, and the neg. is towards your eyes.  There are several holes drilled in each lens for you to see with. This is to treat the retina mainly, but should provide some mild anti aging benefits to the whole eye.  The neg. field works to neutralize free radicals.  For instance in an oxygen free radical, you have all the various rings of electrons, and each ring they are spinning counterclockwise, except the outside ring contains just one electron, and it is going the other way.  That makes it unstable, ready to link on to something else and that is what causes the damage.  But the neg. field will cause it to spin along with the rest, counterclockwise, and not misbehave. I suggest you consult the book by Philpott.  A great overview of mag therapy is "Discovery of Mag. Health," by Washnis.  He has digests of Philpott’s and other doctors’ therapies and results of research and a lot more in that book. Also, I would suggest common sense.  You should be able to feel the magnetic pull on your eye right away, but certainly don’t keep at it if you get real pain (or you could alternate on and off rapidly, or adjust the magnet by putting something beteen it and you, or use a weaker magnet. Don’t use the positive side.  You might experiment with a bipolar magnet, but you would be "on your own."  It might work.  But you don’t use a large bipolar on the brain area for the same reason you don’t use all pos., and that is that it is stimulatory and causes excess serotonin, etc. production.  Pos. is stressful too, and will speed up the brain waves. Elsewhere, in the Cardiology forum I published a proposed experiment to demonstrate this.  An EEG is needed to do this. Sent via Deja.com http://www.deja.com/ Before you buy.

Response:

Related Posts

Write a comment