Magneplast Japanese Speaker required to investigate clinical trial

[Ocelot]

I was recently made aware of this site (http://www.magneplast.net/ClinicalTestResults.html) boasting remarkable clinical results for their magnet therapy product.

If true this trial stands head an sholders above any other clinical trial cited in support of magnet therapy.

http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html

Needless to say I am extremly dubious. Whilst at first glace the report looks like a genuine clinical trial, I note no details regarding peer reviewed publication. In fact I can find no other reference to this astounding trial on the web. I've managed to confirm that Kitazato University does indeed exist and does indeed have a Department of Hygene. The seemingly related Hotta Hospital scores a few hits with a Dr Hotta recommending the Wellness Filter with equally dubious claims.

However the Kitazato University website appears to be in Japanese only and I can find no contact details through which to pursue this research.

That's where I'd appreciate the help of a Japanese speaker.

First question is obviously are they aware of this trial?

If so then who conducted it and can they forward further questions to them.

Those questions are.

Has the trial been submitted for peer review, has it been or is it due to be published?

How did they get around the obvious difficulties in providing a dummy 700 gauss magnet? Surely any participant would be aware that metal items weren't attracted to it?

Moreover how did they effectively double blind the trial. Wouldn't the researcher also be able to easily detect the presence or absense of the magnetic field.

It appears that only 17.7% of the placebo branch showed any improvement in neck and shoulder stiffness over 4 months. Is this in fact, below what would be expected from no treatment whatsoever?

How were the patients assigned into trial groups?

Can you confirm that patients in both groups were denied conventional treatment - physiotherapy, analgesics or antimflamtories for a period of four months?

If so were steps taken to confirm patients refrained from self treatment in these regards for the trial period?

Also would you care to comment on the ethical considerations of denying treatment? Was the trial submitted for ethical review?


These devices are being sold by AM Mail Order. Whois (http://whois.domaintools.com/magneplast.net) searches (http://whois.domaintools.com/magneplast.co.uk) on the magnaplast domain names reveal that the matermind behind this is

Gary Warren
AM Mail Order
Welbeck House, 63 Wellington Road
Pinner,UK,GB HA5 4NF

The same address is confirmed on the site for postal ordering.

I can find no-one else selling this product.

Given the postcode I couldn't restist firing up google maps to take a look at this centre of international research, as far as I'm aware the first people ever to produce a positive clinical trial demonstrating the effectiveness of magnet therapy.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ie=UTF8&q=HA5+4NF&ll=51.605255,-0.373773&spn=0.000572,0.001202&t=h&z=20&iwloc=addr

Colour me underwhelmed.

[Puppycow]

Waste of time. It's not true. It's a big university and a big hospital. Who would you contact? He chose a Japanese University so you couldn't check.

Shoulder and neck "stiffness" isn't even a disease.

I did come up with a hit (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:-dw6RzS5qUQJ:www.meteo-intergate.com/journal/jsearch.php%3Fjo%3Dai6kisoc%26ye%3D1984%26vo%3D18% 26issue%3D8+%E7%A3%81%E6%B0%97%E6%B2%BB%E7%99%82%E 5%99%A8%E2%80%98G-800%E2%80%99&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp)for a clinical trial on a "Magnetic therapy device G-800" but it costs money to look at it. G-800 is the name of the product, not the test number as the mangeplast site claims.

[Freethinker]

I say the paper is a fraud. The language is too poor for even a non-native English speaker, and not nearly technical enough for a medical professional. 52 out of 62 is 83.8%, not 83.3%. The inclusion of this statement:
The effectiveness of magnetic treatment for the relief of neck, shoulder and other types of stiffness has long been acknowledged.
with no cite to previous studies is a red flag that this is not a report prepared by a scientist.

[Ocelot]

Waste of time. It's not true.

You seem to think I need convincing that it's not true. This is not the case. I have little doubt that either Mr Warren made this up entirely or that he employed the services of a charletan who is trading off of the name of Kitazato University.

If you think that my aims here are to find support for the idea of magnet therapy then you are wrong. I agree that doing so would be more than likely a waste of time.

My aims are to get a frauds shut down and possibly punished. I've already sent an e-mail to his local trading standards office aking that they demand more subtative proof of the existance of this trial. I would like to further back this up with a comment from the university whose name is being used in support of this treatment. If the university's name is being used without permission - either by Mr Warren or by a third party pseudo scientist then I belive they deserve to be alerted so that they can take whatever action they deem appropriate.

If you think that is a waste of time then I respectfully disagree. It is after all my time to waste as I see fit.


It's a big university and a big hospital. Who would you contact? He chose a Japanese University so you couldn't check.

I would start with the press office.

Shoulder and neck "stiffness" isn't even a disease.

Yet products sold to remedy it are regulated in the UK.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Medicines_and_Healthcare_products_Regulatory_Agenc y

I did come up with a hit (http://72.14.235.104/search?q=cache:-dw6RzS5qUQJ:www.meteo-intergate.com/journal/jsearch.php%3Fjo%3Dai6kisoc%26ye%3D1984%26vo%3D18% 26issue%3D8+%E7%A3%81%E6%B0%97%E6%B2%BB%E7%99%82%E 5%99%A8%E2%80%98G-800%E2%80%99&hl=ja&ct=clnk&cd=1&gl=jp)for a clinical trial on a "Magnetic therapy device G-800" but it costs money to look at it. G-800 is the name of the product, not the test number as the mangeplast site claims.

Thanks for that but I can't make head nor tail of that page. Can you help?

[Ocelot]

Bumbling about with Google translate (http://translate.google.co.uk/translate?u=www.kitasato-u.ac.jp&sl=ja&tl=en&hl=en&ie=UTF-8), I think I've found an e-mail address for an initial enquiry. I've sent the following e-mail.

Sent: 30 October 2008 10:38
To: 'honbu@kitasato-u.ac.jp'
Subject: Clinical Trial of Magneplast


Dear Sir,

I apologise if this is not the right place to ask and am also embarrassed that I was not able to translate my enquiry into Japanese. I hope however that you can help me or can at least forward my request to someone more appropriate.

I am interested in finding out more about a clinical trial reported on the following webpage.

http://www.magneplast.net/ClinicalTestResults.html

The website mentions Kitazato University in connection with this test but no names, dates or publication details. I wonder if you can tell me if the University is aware of this trial and if so could provide me with more details and perhaps put me in contact with whoever who performed it.

I do have suspicions that the paper in question may have been made up, as it is lacking in certain detail that I have come to expect from a scientific publication.

If you agree that this is most likely the case then it would be useful to have your confirmation so that action can be taken against the website owner.

Thank you for your time.



I'm not optimistic as it's a general all purpose mail box, probably subject to all manner of spam. I can imagine that most English messages are disregarded.

If anyone can provide a suitable translation I'm sure it would help.

In other news I heard back from Brent and Harrow Trading Standards - it seems they no longer act as a first point of contact for such complaints and asked that I resubmit my enquiry via Consumer Direct, which I have done.

[Puppycow]

Thanks for that but I can't make head nor tail of that page. Can you help?

It appears to be an online collection of medical research papers. To actually see the research papers, however, you have to pay. 84 yen to see the abstract and 840 yen to see the whole thing. (At current rates 162 JPY= 1GBP).

You have to register and arrange for online payment too.

So, this study was no doubt chosen to be extremely difficult to verify, because not only do you need to understand Japanese, you have to be willing to jump through a million hoops to read the study.

The thing is, I agree that it is a fraud, but they are claiming to treat something that isn't even a disease. They would run afoul of the law if they claimed to cure cancer or even the common cold, but "shoulder and neck stiffness"? Are you sure that this would even be a crime if you could prove that this study is bogus or misrepresented?

[Ocelot]

It appears to be an online collection of medical research papers. To actually see the research papers, however, you have to pay. 84 yen to see the abstract and 840 yen to see the whole thing. (At current rates 162 JPY= 1GBP).

You have to register and arrange for online payment too.

So, this study was no doubt chosen to be extremely difficult to verify, because not only do you need to understand Japanese, you have to be willing to jump through a million hoops to read the study.

The thing is, I agree that it is a fraud, but they are claiming to treat something that isn't even a disease. They would run afoul of the law if they claimed to cure cancer or even the common cold, but "shoulder and neck stiffness"? Are you sure that this would even be a crime if you could prove that this study is bogus or misrepresented?

Absolutely certain.

http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_1

If their claim is misleading it's illegal, it doesn't matter if their claim is that it removes dents from your car, makes your water taste nicer or makes long distance telephone calls cheaper, if that claim is misleading it's illegal.

In this case claims to cure are specifically covered.


Commercial practices which are in all circumstances considered unfair
1. Claiming to be a signatory to a code of conduct when the trader is not.
2. Displaying a trust mark, quality mark or equivalent without having obtained the necessary authorisation.
3. Claiming that a code of conduct has an endorsement from a public or other body which it does not have.
4. Claiming that a trader (including his commercial practices) or a product has been approved, endorsed or authorised by a public or private body when the trader, the commercial practices or the product have not or making such a claim without complying with the terms of the approval, endorsement or authorisation.
5. Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price without disclosing the existence of any reasonable grounds the trader may have for believing that he will not be able to offer for supply, or to procure another trader to supply, those products or equivalent products at that price for a period that is, and in quantities that are, reasonable having regard to the product, the scale of advertising of the product and the price offered (bait advertising).
6. Making an invitation to purchase products at a specified price and then—
(a) refusing to show the advertised item to consumers,
(b) refusing to take orders for it or deliver it within a reasonable time, or
(c) demonstrating a defective sample of it,
with the intention of promoting a different product (bait and switch).
7. Falsely stating that a product will only be available for a very limited time, or that it will only be available on particular terms for a very limited time, in order to elicit an immediate decision and deprive consumers of sufficient opportunity or time to make an informed choice.
8. Undertaking to provide after-sales service to consumers with whom the trader has communicated prior to a transaction in a language which is not an official language of the EEA State where the trader is located and then making such service available only in another language without clearly disclosing this to the consumer before the consumer is committed to the transaction.
9. Stating or otherwise creating the impression that a product can legally be sold when it cannot.
10. Presenting rights given to consumers in law as a distinctive feature of the trader’s offer.
11. Using editorial content in the media to promote a product where a trader has paid for the promotion without making that clear in the content or by images or sounds clearly identifiable by the consumer (advertorial).
12. Making a materially inaccurate claim concerning the nature and extent of the risk to the personal security of the consumer or his family if the consumer does not purchase the product.
13. Promoting a product similar to a product made by a particular manufacturer in such a manner as deliberately to mislead the consumer into believing that the product is made by that same manufacturer when it is not.
14. Establishing, operating or promoting a pyramid promotional scheme where a consumer gives consideration for the opportunity to receive compensation that is derived primarily from the introduction of other consumers into the scheme rather than from the sale or consumption of products.
15. Claiming that the trader is about to cease trading or move premises when he is not.
16. Claiming that products are able to facilitate winning in games of chance.
17. Falsely claiming that a product is able to cure illnesses, dysfunction or malformations.
18. Passing on materially inaccurate information on market conditions or on the possibility of finding the product with the intention of inducing the consumer to acquire the product at conditions less favourable than normal market conditions.
19. Claiming in a commercial practice to offer a competition or prize promotion without awarding the prizes described or a reasonable equivalent.
20. Describing a product as ‘gratis’, ‘free’, ‘without charge’ or similar if the consumer has to pay anything other than the unavoidable cost of responding to the commercial practice and collecting or paying for delivery of the item.
21. Including in marketing material an invoice or similar document seeking payment which gives the consumer the impression that he has already ordered the marketed product when he has not.
22. Falsely claiming or creating the impression that the trader is not acting for purposes relating to his trade, business, craft or profession, or falsely representing oneself as a consumer.
23. Creating the false impression that after-sales service in relation to a product is available in an EEA State other than the one in which the product is sold.
24. Creating the impression that the consumer cannot leave the premises until a contract is formed.
25. Conducting personal visits to the consumer’s home ignoring the consumer’s request to leave or not to return, except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation.
26. Making persistent and unwanted solicitations by telephone, fax, e-mail or other remote media except in circumstances and to the extent justified to enforce a contractual obligation.
27. Requiring a consumer who wishes to claim on an insurance policy to produce documents which could not reasonably be considered relevant as to whether the claim was valid, or failing systematically to respond to pertinent correspondence, in order to dissuade a consumer from exercising his contractual rights.
28. Including in an advertisement a direct exhortation to children to buy advertised products or persuade their parents or other adults to buy advertised products for them.
29. Demanding immediate or deferred payment for or the return or safekeeping of products supplied by the trader, but not solicited by the consumer, except where the product is a substitute supplied in accordance with regulation 19(7) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 (inertia selling)(11 (http://www.opsi.gov.uk/si/si2008/uksi_20081277_en_5#f00011)).
30. Explicitly informing a consumer that if he does not buy the product or service, the trader’s job or livelihood will be in jeopardy.
31. Creating the false impression that the consumer has already won, will win, or will on doing a particular act win, a prize or other equivalent benefit, when in fact either—
(a) there is no prize or other equivalent benefit, or
(b) taking any action in relation to claiming the prize or other equivalent benefit is subject to the consumer paying money or incurring a cost.


Once again in other news Consumer Direct have now submitted my complaint to Trading Standards. That have also suggested I inform the Advertising Standards Authority and the MHRA. I know from past experience that the ASA will not act on websites, only other forms of advertising, Print, Radio or TV. I'm not aware that Magneplast is advertised in any of these ways.

I will however contact the MHRA to see if these claims would qualify it as a medical device.

[Ocelot]

E-mail to MHRA

Sent: 31 October 2008 12:14
To: 'DTS@mhra.gsi.gov.uk'
Subject: Magneplast
I was recently made aware of this site boasting remarkable clinical results for their magnet therapy product.
http://www.magneplast.net/ClinicalTestResults.html (http://www.magneplast.net/ClinicalTestResults.html)
If true this trial stands head an shoulders above any other clinical trial cited in support of magnet therapy.
http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html (http://skepdic.com/magnetic.html)
I am extremely sceptical that the device works or that the study is genuine.
Since a product is being sold off the back of these claims I would like to ask if such a device would be classed as a medical device requiring a CE mark and if so whether the device is indeed registered with yourselves.
I have already contacted Kitazato University by e-mail (as attached) for more information but I'm just a random English e-mail in a general enquiries mailbox. I hope you might have better lines of communication open for checking on such studies.
I have also contacted consumer direct (response attached) and trading standards are looking onto these claims.
I hope you will investigate whether such claims are misleading and keep me and Trading Standards informed of your findings and any action you take.