Back pain. Knee pain. Arthritis. Injury. Sensitised nerves.

That does makes sense. Pain relief is where much of the interest in static magnetic fields has historically been concentrated, and it is also where Q Magnets are intended to be used.

But researchers haven’t always limited themselves to pain.

Over the years, static magnetic fields have been investigated in animals and humans in connection with inflammation, swelling, wound repair, blood glucose regulation, vascular responses and other physiological processes.

A recently published mouse study adds another unusual application to that list.

Researchers placed a small magnetic collar around the necks of mice with experimentally induced autoimmune thyroiditis, a model intended to resemble aspects of Hashimoto’s thyroiditis.

They weren’t simply measuring pain behaviour.

They measured thyroid hormones, thyroid antibodies, inflammatory markers, gene expression and changes within thyroid tissue itself.

That did get our attention.

Not because it provides evidence for treating Hashimoto’s disease with magnets. It doesn’t.

But it does raise a bigger question:

What biological processes might respond to appropriately applied static magnetic fields and under what conditions?

A Very Unusual Magnetic Experiment

The researchers divided the mice into four groups:

• healthy controls;

• untreated mice with experimental autoimmune thyroiditis;

• mice receiving a nutraceutical combination; and

• mice receiving the same nutraceutical combination plus local static magnet exposure.

The supplement contained vitamin C, vitamin D3, selenium, zinc and Nigella sativa extract.

For the magnetic intervention, the researchers constructed a soft collar containing small neodymium magnets positioned over the anterior neck, above the thyroid gland.

And this is one reason the accompanying photograph is so interesting.

It isn’t an abstract laboratory apparatus.

It is essentially a wearable local static-field intervention.

The researchers reported that the supplement group showed improvements in several biochemical measures compared with untreated animals. They also reported further differences in the group receiving both the supplement and magnetic exposure, including measures related to thyroid hormones, antibodies, inflammation and thyroid tissue structure.

Interesting?

Certainly.

Proof that static magnets treat Hashimoto’s disease?

Absolutely not.

This was a very small animal experiment, with only four mice per group. There was no magnet-only group and no proper sham-magnet collar group. There are also inconsistencies within the paper regarding the magnetic field strength and exposure duration reported in different sections.

So we need to keep the findings firmly where they belong:

Preliminary, hypothesis-generating animal research.

But sometimes an imperfect experiment can still prompt a very good question.

Static Magnetic Fields Have Been Taken Beyond Pain Before

This isn’t the first time researchers have used permanent static magnets to investigate something other than ordinary pain relief.

Readers who have followed MagnaBlog may remember the work of Hungarian researcher János László and colleagues.

In one of their mouse experiments, they investigated analgesia and found that the biological response depended substantially on the distribution and arrangement of the permanent magnets being used. In other words, merely saying that an animal was “exposed to magnets” wasn’t enough. How those magnets were configured mattered and what mattered most was the alternating magnetic pole matrix and a strong magnetic field gradient.

That fits closely with an idea we discuss regularly:

Field matters.

But László’s group didn’t stop at pain.

In another experiment, diabetic mice received 30 minutes of whole-body exposure each day to a highly inhomogeneous (think non-uniform/gradient) static magnetic field. The researchers reported a significant reduction in blood glucose in one diabetic group. Again, this was an animal experiment—not a clinical treatment recommendation—but it demonstrates that researchers have asked questions about static fields that extend considerably beyond analgesia.

Other researchers have done the same.

What About Inflammation and Swelling?

One particularly interesting experiment came from biomedical engineers at the University of Virginia.

Researchers deliberately produced localised inflammation and swelling in rat paws and then exposed the paws to static magnetic fields.

They tested different field strengths.

What happened was especially interesting.

Static fields of 10 mT and 70 mT reduced experimentally induced oedema, while a much stronger 400 mT field did not. Timing mattered too: applying the field at some stages of the inflammatory response produced an effect, whereas applying it at other stages did not. The clearest pattern was that earlier application produced the greater effect.

That finding deserves attention for another reason.

It challenges the simple assumption:

If some magnetic field is useful, more magnetic field must be better.

That is not necessarily how biological systems behave.

It looks like there are windows in which particular exposure conditions interact with a biological process, while considerably stronger exposure does not produce the same result.

That takes us straight back to Field | Dose | Placement | Context.

Wound Healing Has Also Been Investigated

Static magnets have also been studied in experimental wound healing.

A recent systematic review identified eight rodent studies in which static magnetic fields were applied to skin wounds.

The overall results were mixed.

The pooled analysis did not find a statistically significant improvement for some measures of wound area. However, differences were reported in gross healing time and tensile strength in some comparisons.

Again, that does not establish magnets as a wound-healing treatment.

But it shows something important about the history of this field:

Researchers have repeatedly investigated static magnetic exposure as a biological variable, not merely as a way to alter pain perception.

Human Research Is Broader Than Many People Realise

There has also been considerable human research involving permanent static magnets.

A critical review published in 2009 identified 56 human studies, involving 39 different physiological or pathological conditions.

These included areas as varied as osteoarthritis, peripheral neuropathy, vascular disease, wound and ulcer healing, muscle soreness, blood flow, heart rate and blood pressure.

But there was a major problem.

The researchers found that 61% of the studies did not describe the magnetic exposure sufficiently well for another researcher to reproduce it.

Important details were often missing:

• magnet dimensions;

• actual measured field strength;

• distance between the magnet and target tissue;

• characteristics of the field being applied.

And that may tell us something about why the magnetic-therapy literature has remained so difficult to interpret.

Perhaps the question has too often been:

Do magnets work?

when the better question is:

What field was applied, at what dose, to what tissue, in what location, and under what biological conditions?

Field | Dose | Placement | Context

This is why we keep returning to the same framework.

Field

What type of magnetic field was actually applied?

A uniform field and a highly inhomogeneous field are not the same exposure.

A simple single-pole arrangement and an engineered multipolar field are not the same exposure.

The spatial gradient can matter just as much as the number printed in gauss or millitesla.

Dose

How strong was the field at the tissue?

How far was the tissue from the magnet?

How long was the exposure?

Was it applied once, for minutes, for hours, or repeatedly for weeks?

The University of Virginia oedema experiment is a good reminder that simply increasing magnetic field strength does not necessarily increase a biological response.

Placement

Where was the field applied relative to the tissue being investigated?

This is especially interesting in the new thyroid study.

The researchers weren’t exposing the entire mouse indiscriminately.

They deliberately positioned the magnets over the thyroid region.

Context

And perhaps the variable that receives the least attention:

What biological process was occurring at the time?

Acute inflammation?

Chronic sensitisation?

Tissue injury?

Metabolic dysfunction?

Autoimmune activity?

Recovery?

The same static field might conceivably interact differently with tissues in very different physiological states.

We don’t yet know.

That’s precisely why these experiments are interesting.

This Isn’t About Acupuncture Magnets

There is an important distinction worth making.

Acupuncturists have used small magnets on acupuncture points for many years, sometimes instead of needles or as a way of providing prolonged stimulation after treatment.

That is interesting in its own right.

But conceptually it is a different question.

If a magnet is being used primarily to stimulate an acupuncture point according to an acupuncture framework, it becomes difficult to determine whether an observed effect relates to the properties of the static magnetic field itself, stimulation of the selected point, or some combination of the two.

The same caution applies to other systems involving magnets, including approaches such as the Biomagnetic Pair method developed by Dr Isaac Goiz.

Those systems raise their own questions and deserve separate discussion.

For this article, we’re interested in something narrower:

What happens when researchers treat a local static magnetic field itself as the experimental intervention?

And That Brings Us Back to the Mouse With the Collar

The photograph from the new thyroid study looks almost deceptively simple.

A mouse.

A small collar.

Two permanent magnets.

Yet the researchers were attempting to influence—or at least investigate—a complicated inflammatory and autoimmune process occurring inside an organ beneath those magnets.

The study is nowhere near strong enough to tell us whether the reported effects are clinically meaningful.

It certainly doesn’t tell us that people with Hashimoto’s disease should start placing magnets over their thyroid.

But perhaps its real value is different.

It reminds us how little of the potential biological landscape of static magnetic fields has been systematically mapped.

Pain may only be one place researchers have looked.

Have You Seen Something We Should Know About?

This brings us to our readers.

Among MagnaBlog subscribers are clinicians, acupuncturists, therapists, researchers and people who have been experimenting with static magnets for many years.

Some of you have probably used magnets in ways that extend beyond straightforward musculoskeletal pain.

We’re curious.

Have you ever observed an unexpected effect from static magnetic-field exposure that appeared to extend beyond pain relief?

Perhaps something involving:

• swelling;

• recovery following an injury;

• an inflammatory response;

• tissue healing;

• some other physiological change you weren’t expecting.

We’re particularly interested in observations that appeared to be repeatable.

If you have something worth sharing, don’t just tell us that “the magnets helped.”

Tell us:

Field — What magnet or magnetic configuration did you use?

Dose — How long was it applied, and how frequently?

Placement — Exactly where did you put it?

Context — What was happening physiologically or clinically at the time?

Observation — What changed?

And perhaps most importantly:

Did the same thing happen again when you repeated the application?

Please don’t experiment with magnets to treat serious medical conditions or use them in place of appropriate medical care simply because of something discussed in this newsletter.

We’re asking about observations that have already occurred.

Anecdotes are not clinical evidence.

But careful observations can generate questions.

And good questions are often where research begins.

Perhaps We Have Been Asking the Wrong Question

For decades, debate around magnetic therapy has often been reduced to two opposing positions.

Magnets work.

Or:

Magnets don’t work.

Biology is rarely that simple.

The research discussed here suggests a much more interesting question:

Under what Field, Dose, Placement and Context might a static magnetic field produce a measurable biological effect?

We don’t yet have that map.

But studies ranging from László’s experiments with field configuration, to inflammatory oedema, wound healing, metabolic models and now autoimmune thyroiditis suggest that researchers have been quietly exploring different parts of it for decades.

Some findings will undoubtedly fail to replicate.

Some mechanisms proposed today will probably turn out to be wrong.

Some apparent effects may disappear under better experimental controls.

That is how science progresses.

But if static magnetic fields can interact measurably with biology under certain conditions, the important task isn’t to believe in magnets.

It is to discover the conditions.

Field. Dose. Placement. Context.

And perhaps some of our readers have observations that could point towards questions researchers haven’t thought to ask yet.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Research discussed

László J, et al. Optimization of static magnetic field parameters improves analgesic effect in mice. Bioelectromagnetics. 2007;28:615–627. PMID: 17654477

László JF, et al. Daily exposure to inhomogeneous static magnetic field significantly reduces blood glucose level in diabetic mice. International Journal of Radiation Biology. 2011;87:36–45. PMID: 20961270

Morris CE, Skalak TC. Acute exposure to a moderate strength static magnetic field reduces edema formation in rats. American Journal of Physiology – Heart and Circulatory Physiology. 2008. PMID: 17982018

Lewandoski LT, et al. Static magnetic field on wound healing in rodents: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Electromagnetic Biology and Medicine. 2025. PMID: 39760456

Colbert AP, et al. Static magnetic field therapy: a critical review of treatment parameters. Evidence-Based Complementary and Alternative Medicine. 2009. PMID: 18955243

Yaramiri A, et al. A novel non-invasive combination of nutraceuticals and magnet therapy for Hashimoto’s thyroiditis: preclinical evidence. 2026. REF

Weekly Reframe

You’ve heard the saying, “Timing is everything.”

This research suggests static magnetic fields may be no exception: when the field is applied could matter just as much as how strong it is.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

While reading Arthur Firstenberg’s The Invisible Rainbow, I was struck by accounts of Europe’s eighteenth-century fascination with electricity described at the time as “electronomania.”

Electrical demonstrations became fashionable entertainment. People formed human chains to experience shocks, wealthy households displayed elaborate electrical machines, and electricity was introduced into hospitals and medical practices.

Early experimenters also observed that people responded differently. A small electrical exposure could profoundly affect one person, while another appeared unaffected by something stronger.

This made me wonder whether people might also vary in their responses to multipolar static magnetic fields.

An AI research assistant produced a thoughtful answer and referred to two studies with apparently different results. One was the Kuipers study, in which 15 volunteers lay on a mattress containing 95 magnets for one hour. It found no significant change in experimentally induced pain.

The comparison sounded convincing but there was a critical problem.

The mattress contained numerous magnets with the same pole facing the participant. They provided general exposure across the body, with no targeted placement over a particular nerve, trigger point, joint or source of pain.

This was nothing like a purpose-designed multipolar medical magnet applied at a selected anatomical location.

A more relevant study by László and colleagues used an inhomogeneous static magnetic field a field whose strength or direction changes across space, creating magnetic-field gradients. The participant’s finger was positioned directly within the field apparatus, and the researchers detected an increase in thermal pain threshold.

Importantly, this apparatus arose from earlier experiments in which the researchers compared different magnet arrangements. They reported that optimising the distribution of the static magnetic field improved its analgesic effect in mice.

The human study does not prove the clinical efficacy of Q Magnets. However, this research sequence adds to evidence that different static magnetic-field configurations should not be treated as equivalent. Field geometry, polarity arrangement, gradients, dose and placement may all influence the biological response.

The apparent disagreement between the Kuipers and László studies may therefore tell us more about differences between the interventions than differences between the people receiving them.

The AI-generated answer was articulate, cautious and supported by genuine research. Most readers and probably many clinicians could easily have accepted it.

Recognising the weakness required specialist knowledge of magnetic-field configuration and therapeutic placement.

That is the wider lesson:

If you don’t know your subject, it’s easy to be misled by AI not because every answer is obviously wrong, but because the most dangerous errors can sound entirely reasonable.

AI is an extraordinarily useful research assistant, but it does not replace subject knowledge or careful examination of the original methodology.

The better scientific question is not simply:

“Do magnets work?”

It is:

What field, delivered at what dose, and placed where, produces what effect in which person?

Read the complete article:

Click here to read full article

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

“A little learning is a dangerous thing.”
— Alexander Pope

The Reframe

In the age of AI, a little learning can sound like a lot.

AI can produce a polished explanation, cite genuine research and still overlook the detail that changes the conclusion.

That is what makes it so useful and potentially misleading. The greatest risk is not the obviously foolish answer. It is the plausible answer that sounds authoritative to anyone who does not know the subject well enough to challenge it.

Expertise is not knowing everything. It is knowing which questions must still be asked:

Were the interventions genuinely comparable?
Did the methodology support the conclusion?
Was an important detail hidden behind a broad label?

Use AI to expand your thinking not to suspend it.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

I tend to spend a lot of time at acupuncture and physiotherapy conferences. Perhaps that is because practitioners in both professions tend to understand very quickly what we are trying to do with Q Magnets.

They work with pain every day. They think about anatomy. They palpate tissues. They follow nerve pathways. They know that where you apply something can be just as important as what you apply.

In other words, they tend to understand Field | Dose | Placement almost instinctively.

And the best part often comes after the conference.

A practitioner takes some Q Magnets home. They try them on themselves, a family member or, where appropriate, within their professional practice. Then, a few days or weeks later, an email or message arrives telling me what happened.

Over the past couple of months, I exhibited at two events: the Australian Medical Acupuncture College Queensland Conference on 25–26 July, followed by AACMAC in Melbourne from 7–9 August.

Since then, four particularly interesting pieces of feedback have come back to me.

AACMAC 2026 in Melbourne — one of the things I enjoy most about conferences is the opportunity to talk directly with acupuncturists about how they are using Q Magnets.

From Localised Relief to Widespread Comfort

The first message came from a practitioner at the Australian Medical Acupuncture College conference who has asked to remain anonymous.

She is 66 and lives with a chronic pain condition affecting much of her body. Because she does not tolerate analgesic medication well, pain and difficulty moving had increasingly restricted her everyday life.

She initially experimented with individual Q Magnets and reported noticeable relief in the particular areas where she placed them.

Then she tried one of the larger Q Magnet blankets.

After sleeping on it overnight, she described a significant reduction in discomfort across her body. She also reported less stiffness, more energy, better mood and an improved ability to carry out everyday activities.

She now sleeps on the blanket every night.

Her summary was wonderfully simple:

“Q Magnets have greatly improved my quality of life.”

That is her experience, of course, and individual responses vary.

But what interests me about it is the progression.

She first observed a response with localised placement. She then explored a broader application because her symptoms were widespread.

Read more about our Q Blankets here.

That is a much more useful way to think about magnetic field therapy than simply asking whether “magnets work”.

The better questions are: What field? What dose? Where is it placed? And what is the context?

A Practitioner Who Called It a “Complementary Treatment”

Another practitioner from the same AMAC conference sent me a shorter message, but one phrase stood out.

After trialling the Q Magnets, they told me they felt the magnets could “reduce the pain signal” and could be a useful complementary treatment, particularly around osteoarthritic areas and localised strains.

They also made an observation I actually appreciate:

“It takes a bit more work to apply.”

Exactly. But this is from a General Practitioner and acupuncturists in a busy GP Clinic.

Q Magnets are not designed around the idea that you simply put any magnet anywhere on the body and hope for the best

Application matters. But once you get it right, from then on, it’s simple.

The size of the device matters. Tissue depth matters. Anatomical placement matters. And when several magnets are being used, their relationship to one another matters.

That makes the technology a little less convenient than a magnetic bracelet.

It also makes it much more interesting to practitioners.

Exhibiting Q Magnets at the Australian Medical Acupuncture College Queensland conference.

Vicki, an OF50-3 and a Story That Felt Strangely Familiar

One of the most encouraging messages came after AACMAC.

Vicki is still an acupuncture student. While we were talking, she told me about her partner’s complicated history of lower back pain.

Around nine years earlier, she had injured the L4/5 disc. Since then, she had experienced severe tailbone pain when sitting, sciatica, shooting leg and foot pain and episodes of protective muscle spasm.

She had been through a considerable amount of treatment, including spinal surgery and multidisciplinary pain management.

Her story immediately reminded me of someone we treated many years ago at our old physiotherapy clinic.

So I gave Vicki an OF50-3 to trial.

The OF50-3 is our larger octapolar Q Magnet. Its size can make it useful when the intention is to create field coverage across two adjacent lumbar levels rather than concentrating on a smaller area.

Three weeks later, Vicki’s partner sent us her feedback.

She reported a significant reduction in pain while sitting, no further spasms during that period, and said She could not recall experiencing the sciatica or leg pain that had previously been so familiar.

After nine years of trying different approaches, She described that change as particularly meaningful.

There were also two very practical observations.

Despite normally being sensitive to adhesives, she reported no irritation from the double-sided QFix40 adhesive used with the OF50-3.

And during her first week of wearing it, the magnet managed to set off an airport security scanner resulting in an unexpected pat-down.

Even magnetic field therapy occasionally comes with travel stories.

Why Vicki’s Partner’s Story Reminded Me of Peter

The earlier physiotherapy case I was thinking about involved a 50-year-old man named Peter who had lived with debilitating lower back pain for around 15 years.

Peter had undergone a laminectomy and later an L5–S1 fusion. She had persistent lower back pain, right-foot numbness, pronounced hypersensitivity around the lumbar spine and very limited sitting tolerance.

At the time, our physiotherapist used several approaches as part of her management, including rehabilitation, hands-on treatment, InterX therapy and an OF50-3 Q Magnet over the lower lumbar region.

Over seven sessions, Peter’s tolerance for sitting and touch improved considerably. The outcome that mattered most to him was that she could eventually sit and paint for five hours something her pain had previously prevented him from doing. Importantly, the original case report did not claim that one intervention alone caused the improvement; the Q Magnet was part of a broader physiotherapy programme.

Read Peter’s chronic lower back pain case study

There is an interesting parallel between the two stories.

Both involved longstanding lumbar problems.

Both involved previous surgery.

Both involved sitting intolerance.

And both involved the larger OF50-3 as part of the approach.

That does not mean everyone with a similar history will respond in the same way.

But these are precisely the sorts of recurring clinical observations that make practitioner feedback worth collecting.

Safety note: Vicki’s partner reported having previously trialled spinal cord stimulators. Q Magnets should not be used near a current spinal cord stimulator, pacemaker, ICD, infusion pump or other magnetically sensitive implanted medical device. Always follow the Instructions for Use and seek professional advice where appropriate.

Rose’s Mum: Sometimes the Most Important Change Is Sleep

The fourth story came from acupuncturists Rose Luo, who also earned a PhD in alternative medicine.

Rose’s mother has severe osteoarthritis. Recently, cold weather combined with a fall had made her discomfort particularly difficult.

Rose tried Q Magnets with her.

The first thing her mum noticed wasn’t an impressive number on a pain scale.

It was sleep.

According to Rose, the very first night her mum used them she had the best night’s sleep she had experienced in months because she was no longer continually waking because of discomfort.

Rose subsequently told me that it had been wonderful seeing her mother more comfortable and sleeping better. She described the Q Magnets as a useful addition alongside her other treatments, and said her mum felt less need to rely as heavily on pain medication.

That last point deserves an important qualification: Q Magnets are not a reason to stop prescribed medication or replace medical care. Medication changes should always be discussed with the treating healthcare professional.

Rose also supplied one of my favourite pieces of practical feedback from the whole series.

Her mum was wearing magnets on both legs and they occasionally ended up sticking to one another.

Rose’s conclusion?

Perhaps they should have used the tape after all.

Sometimes the best product education comes straight from customers.

What These Four Stories Have in Common

These are four very different experiences.

One involved widespread chronic pain.

One came from a practitioner thinking about osteoarthritis and localised strains.

One involved an unusually complex, longstanding lumbar pain history.

One involved an older woman with osteoarthritis whose daughter was simply pleased to see her sleeping more comfortably.

They aren’t clinical trials.

They don’t prove that another person will have the same response.

But they do illustrate something I have observed repeatedly through years of working with practitioners:

Good results are rarely about simply owning a magnet. They are about using the right field, at an appropriate dose, in the right place, for the right context.

That is why conferences remain so valuable to me.

I can explain field geometry on a website.

I can show placement diagrams.

I can talk about multipolar magnetic fields and nervous system modulation.

But standing at a conference table with an acupuncturist or physiotherapist, discussing a real person with a real problem, is different.

Practitioners naturally start asking the useful questions:

Where exactly is the discomfort?

Is it local or referred?

How deep is the structure we are trying to influence?

Which magnet size makes sense?

Where should it go?

What changes when we move it?

That is where Q Magnets become less about “magnetic therapy” as a generic idea and more about precision multipolar medical magnets used through Field | Dose | Placement.

For readers interested in how much correct placement can matter, this recent MagnaBlog revisits Peter’s case and what happened when her magnet was accidentally reapplied incorrectly. When Your Q Magnet Seems to Stop Working…

And if lower back pain is the reason you are exploring Q Magnets, our practical placement resource explains the different lower-back configurations and when the larger OF50-3 may be considered. Lower Back Pain Treatment Protocol

Why I’ll Keep Going to Conferences

There are easier ways to sell products than packing boxes, flying interstate or overseas, setting up exhibition stands and standing on your feet talking for several days.

But I wouldn’t trade it.

Some of the most useful things we have learned about Q Magnets have come from practitioners and customers who went away, experimented carefully, observed what happened and then came back to tell us.

Sometimes the message arrives after a few days.

Sometimes after a few weeks.

And occasionally it describes an outcome that makes me think:

We’ve seen something rather like this before.

That is how experience accumulates.

One practitioner.

One patient.

One placement.

One observation at a time.

If you’re a health practitioner interested in exploring Q Magnets as an adjunct within your practice, you can find information about our practitioner programme here. Q Magnets Practitioner Program

Q Magnets are non-powered multipolar magnetic devices intended to potentially provide comfort or temporary localised relief of minor aches and pains. Individual responses vary. They are not a substitute for medical diagnosis, prescribed treatment or professional healthcare advice.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

The question isn’t simply, “Do magnets work?”

A better question is:

What field, at what dose, placed where — and for whom?

Featured Article

Why magnet design matters? Learning from Cow Magnets

Read Full Article

Magnetic Field Gradients

Read Full Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Full Article

We tend to think of magnets as familiar objects: something on the refrigerator, a compass needle, an electric motor - or, in my case, the static magnetic fields I have spent decades studying through Q Magnets.

But take a much bigger view.

Electromagnetism is one of the four fundamental forces of nature, alongside gravity and the strong and weak nuclear forces.

That puts magnetism in rather distinguished company.

And right now, some of the most ambitious problems in science, medicine and energy are being tackled with magnetic fields.

Perhaps the most spectacular example is nuclear fusion.

Trying to Build a Sun on Earth

The Sun has been operating a fusion reactor for approximately 4.6 billion years.

Deep within it, enormous gravitational pressure and temperatures of around 15 million °C create conditions where hydrogen nuclei can fuse, ultimately releasing extraordinary amounts of energy.

There is one rather obvious problem if we want to reproduce fusion here on Earth.

We don’t have the gravity of the Sun.

So scientists have developed other ways of creating the conditions necessary for fusion.

One of the most important is magnetic confinement.

Rather than physically touching a plasma, which would destroy any ordinary container, powerful magnetic fields can be used to confine, shape and control the electrically charged particles.

And the conditions are extreme.

Experimental deuterium–tritium fusion machines such as ITER are designed for plasma temperatures above 150 million °C.

Think about that for a moment.

On one side of the machine you can have superconducting magnets cooled to only a few degrees above absolute zero.

A short distance away is plasma hotter than the centre of the Sun.

ITER’s superconducting magnet system is designed to produce fields approaching 12-13 tesla in parts of the machine, while its superconductors operate around 4 Kelvin (4 K). That’s approximately −269 °C.

It is difficult to imagine a more spectacular demonstration of what magnetic-field engineering can accomplish.

And the Magnets Are Getting Better

This is one reason fusion has become particularly interesting again.

The physics is not new.

What is changing is the technology surrounding it.

High-temperature superconducting, or HTS, magnets can generate extremely high magnetic fields and potentially allow some fusion machines to become substantially smaller.

Commonwealth Fusion Systems, which grew from work at MIT, demonstrated a large-bore 20-tesla HTS magnet in 2021 and is now building its SPARC fusion experiment around this technology.

Europe is pushing another approach.

Proxima Fusion, a spin-out from Germany’s Max Planck Institute for Plasma Physics, is developing advanced stellarators - machines whose extraordinarily complex magnetic coils are designed to confine plasma continuously.

In February 2026, Proxima, energy company RWE, Bavaria and the Max Planck Institute announced a roadmap towards a demonstration machine called Alpha and ultimately a proposed commercial stellarator power plant called Stellaris. Proxima says Alpha is planned for the early 2030s.

And just last month, in July 2026, Proxima announced another €411 million capital raise.

This isn’t a science-fiction concept sitting forgotten in a university basement.

Serious scientists, engineers, governments and investors are putting serious money behind it.

Whether commercial fusion arrives in five years, fifteen years or considerably longer remains an open question.

But something important is happening.

Magnet technology is helping push the boundary of what fusion machines can do.

An Australian Perspective

This naturally makes me think about what we are doing here in Australia.

Snowy 2.0 is one obvious example. Snowy 2.0 is principally energy storage. It uses electricity when it is abundant to pump water uphill, then releases that water through turbines when electricity is required.

When Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull announced the project in 2017, the early public estimate was around $2 billion. Following further work, the 2018 investment estimate became approximately $6.1 billion. In 2023 it was reset to $12 billion.

By March 2026, $11.1 billion had already been spent, and some estimate the costs could blow out to well over $20 billion. The figures are eye-watering and to think, what that type of investment in nuclear fusion research would have accomplished?

How much of our national energy strategy should be devoted to building today’s infrastructure, and how much should we be investing in technologies that could fundamentally change tomorrow’s infrastructure?

Meanwhile the geniuses running our government are spending many billions more, building solar and wind farms with generous taxpayer subsidies criss-crossing our vast country and spending billions more connecting them to the grid with enormous transmission wires. Whereas, to develop nuclear fusion reactors and replace the existing coal-generation sites that already have transmission access makes perfect sense.

A country with Australia’s scientific capability should at least be deeply involved in that conversation. But I never hear it discussed at the national level!

There is another intriguing possibility.

Large thermal power-station sites already have valuable assets: grid connections, transmission corridors, industrial land, access roads and a skilled energy workforce. Studies of converting former coal sites to nuclear generation have highlighted precisely these advantages.

If fusion ultimately becomes commercial, locating future firm generation near existing energy infrastructure may be one of the questions worth exploring.

That doesn’t mean you can simply “clunk a fusion reactor” into an old coal station.

But existing infrastructure could become a valuable part of the equation.

Fusion Is Remarkable - but It Isn’t Magic

What fusion offers is the potential for abundant low-carbon firm energy without the same self-sustaining chain reaction used in conventional nuclear fission reactors (what most of us understand as nuclear reactors).

That’s an extraordinary prize.

It is not yet a solved engineering problem.

And that distinction matters.

Magnetism Is Already Transforming Medicine

Fusion may be the spectacular example, but look at medicine.

MRI is now so commonplace that we barely stop to think about what the initials mean:

Magnetic Resonance Imaging.

A powerful magnetic field aligns hydrogen protons within our tissues. Radiofrequency energy disturbs that alignment, magnetic-field gradients encode spatial information, and computers reconstruct the resulting signals into remarkably detailed images.

No X-rays are required.

A technology that once seemed extraordinary is now routine medicine.

Then consider transcranial magnetic stimulation (TMS).

TMS uses rapidly changing magnetic fields outside the skull to induce small electrical currents within selected regions of the brain. It is already used clinically for several neurological and psychiatric applications, including treatment-resistant depression and OCD.

The Body Produces Magnetic Fields Too

There is another fascinating connection.

Magnetic fields aren’t foreign to human physiology. The electrical currents generated by the heart, brain, nerves and muscles also produce extraordinarily small magnetic fields that can now be measured with sensitive instruments.

The magnetic field of the heart can be recorded with magnetocardiography, while the magnetic activity associated with the brain can be measured with magnetoencephalography.

That does not prove that externally applied static magnetic fields have therapeutic effects.

But it does demonstrate why bioelectromagnetism is a legitimate and fascinating field of science. Biology, electricity and magnetism are not completely separate subjects.

The interesting question is what happens when particular externally generated fields interact with biological systems - and under what conditions.

And the frontier continues to move.

Researchers reported in 2026 on quantum-sensing MRI, investigating whether extremely small magnetic fields associated with neuronal firing might eventually be detected using MRI systems. This remains an emerging technology requiring independent validation, but it shows just how far magnetic sensing is being pushed.

Elsewhere, researchers are developing new magnetic materials for spintronics, where the magnetic properties and spin of electrons can be used for next-generation memory, sensing and computing technologies. A major Nature Physics review published only last month examined the emerging field of altermagnetic spintronics.

So when someone treats magnetism as an old or simplistic technology, I find that rather amusing.

Some of the most sophisticated laboratories on Earth are doing exactly the opposite.

The Real Lesson Is Field Engineering

There is another connection between these technologies that I think is particularly important.

The extraordinary advances are not simply coming from making magnets stronger.

They are coming from becoming better at engineering magnetic fields.

In fusion, scientists carefully shape magnetic fields to confine plasma.

In MRI, magnetic-field gradients allow the scanner to determine where signals originate within the body.

In TMS, the characteristics of the magnetic pulse and where it is applied determine which neural structures are influenced.

And this is particularly relevant to our work with Q Magnets.

Q Magnets are not simply “strong magnets”. They are precision multipolar medical magnets designed to create particular field geometries and steep localised magnetic-field gradients.

Unlike MRI, TMS or fusion systems, Q Magnets do not require an external power source. They are passive medical devices that create persistent localised static magnetic-field environments.

That doesn’t mean these technologies work by the same mechanism. They clearly don’t.

It illustrates something more fundamental:

When discussing magnetic technology, the characteristics of the field matter.

Different Fields. Different Effects.

An MRI magnet is not a TMS coil.

A fusion confinement magnet is not an MRI scanner.

A weak refrigerator magnet is not a precision multipolar static medical magnet.

The relevant questions are always more specific.

· What kind of field?

· How strong is it?

· Is it static or changing?

· What is its geometry?

· How rapidly does it change across space?

· How long is the exposure?

· And what exactly is being exposed to it?

That is why in our own field I keep returning to the same three variables:

Field. Dose. Placement.

Different magnetic-field configurations produce very different physical environments.

That doesn’t prove that every claimed biological use of magnets works.

Quite the opposite.

It tells us why the word “magnet” alone is scientifically inadequate.

The Bigger Lesson

I don’t know when commercially viable fusion electricity will arrive.

Nobody does.

Some companies are talking about this decade. Other roadmaps extend well into the 2030s, and history tells us to maintain a healthy degree of scepticism about ambitious fusion timelines.

But I do know this.

Humanity is using magnetic fields to see inside the body.

We are using them to stimulate specific regions of the brain.

We are developing magnetic materials for the next generation of computing.

We are building superconducting magnets capable of producing fields tens of thousands of times stronger than Earth’s magnetic field.

And we are trying to use magnetic fields to hold plasma hotter than the Sun long enough to capture the energy released when atomic nuclei fuse.

For something invisible, magnetism has an extraordinary reach.

Perhaps the lesson isn’t that we should believe every claim made about magnets.

We shouldn’t.

The lesson is that we should probably stop underestimating what carefully engineered magnetic fields are capable of doing.

Want to dig deeper?

For the shorter introduction that prompted this week’s MagnaBlog, watch the overview of Europe’s emerging stellarator fusion technology:

For a much deeper exploration, Lex Fridman’s conversation with fusion engineer and Helion Energy CEO David Kirtley runs for nearly three hours and covers fusion physics, extreme plasma temperatures, reactor engineering and the challenge of turning fusion energy into electricity.

For readers interested in our own area of research, explore How Q Magnets Work and Magnetic Field Gradients for an introduction to why magnetic-field configuration, gradient, dose and anatomical placement matter.”

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

“It’s not the size that matters. It’s what you do with it.”

When it comes to magnetism, strength is only part of the story. Field geometry, gradients, dose and placement can completely change what a magnetic field does.

Featured Articles

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

For plenty of women, medication works well. Anti-inflammatory drugs and other conventional treatments are established options, and if they provide good relief without unwanted effects, there is no reason to argue against them.

But not everyone wants to rely on medication every month.

Some women experience side effects. Some cannot use particular medicines. Others simply prefer to explore a non-pharmaceutical option where a reasonable one exists.

So this week we asked a narrower question:

What does the published research actually say about using static magnets for period pain?

The answer turned out to be more interesting than many people might expect.

Two Randomised Studies Specifically on Menstrual Pain

There are two published randomised pilot studies that directly investigated static magnetic fields for primary dysmenorrhoea period pain.

And both reported significantly better pain outcomes with the active magnetic treatment than with their control devices.

That does not mean the evidence is definitive.

Both studies were small and need replication.

But it does mean that saying there is simply “no evidence” for static magnets and menstrual pain isn’t an accurate description of the literature.

Read our comprehensive article where we pull apart the research and applications for menstrual pain.

Eccles: prolonged treatment over the pelvic region

In 2005, Dr Nyjon Eccles conducted a randomised, double-blind, placebo-controlled pilot study involving women with regular dysmenorrhoea.

The active device was a specially designed 2700-gauss neodymium static magnet.

It was positioned anterior to the pubis in other words, over the lower pelvic region and women began wearing it about two days before the expected start of menstruation, continuing through their period.

The active-magnet group experienced a significantly greater reduction in pain than the weak-magnet control group.

What caught our attention was not simply that the result was positive.

It was how the magnetic field was used.

The researchers selected a particular magnetic configuration, positioned it over an anatomically relevant region, and gave it a substantial exposure time.

In other words:

Field. Dose. Placement.

Mayrovitz: only 40 minutes but precisely over the pain

A second randomised study published by Harvey Mayrovitz and colleagues in 2021 took a very different approach.

This time researchers used a 0.4 Tesla concentric rare-earth neodymium magnet.

Instead of applying it to exactly the same anatomical position for every woman, each participant identified the abdominal location where her menstrual pain was greatest.

The device was placed directly over that location.

And it stayed there for just 40 minutes.

The results?

Average pain reduction was approximately 41.8% with the active magnet compared with 20.8% with the sham.

Eleven of the 19 women receiving active treatment achieved what the researchers defined as a meaningful reduction in pain, compared with three of 17 women receiving sham treatment.

Again, this was a small pilot study.

But it raises a fascinating practical question.

Why could a relatively short treatment exposure produce a measurable result?

One possibility worth investigating is placement.

The magnet wasn’t simply worn somewhere convenient.

It was positioned directly over the location each woman identified as being most painful.

Then There Is Chronic Pelvic Pain

There is another study worth adding to the picture.

Brown and colleagues investigated static magnets in women with chronic pelvic pain.

This wasn’t specifically a menstrual-pain study, so we need to keep that distinction clear.

But the placement method is particularly relevant.

Researchers palpated the abdomen, identified the two most sensitive trigger points, and positioned approximately 500-gauss concentric bipolar magnets directly over those sites.

The magnets were worn continuously.

Women completing four weeks of active treatment showed significant improvements in measures of pain-related disability and global clinical impression compared with placebo, although the study also had limitations including compromised blinding.

Three studies.

Different conditions.

Different magnets.

Different exposure times.

But there is an interesting common denominator:

The researchers paid attention to where the magnetic field was placed.

This Is Why “Do Magnets Work?” Is Probably the Wrong Question

Static magnetic therapy is often discussed as if every magnet were interchangeable.

They aren’t.

The Eccles study used one field configuration.

Mayrovitz used another.

Brown used another again.

Their treatment duration varied from 40 minutes to continuous wear over weeks.

Their placement strategies also differed.

That is precisely why we keep coming back to our Field | Dose | Placement framework.

Field

What type of magnetic field is being produced?

A bipolar magnetic field is not the same as a concentric alternating-pole field, which is not the same as a quadrupolar or octapolar field.

Dose

How large is the device?

How deep is the target?

How strong and complex is the field?

How long is the exposure?

Forty minutes and several days of continuous wear are very different doses.

Placement

Where is the field actually being applied?

Over the lower pelvis?

At the precise location of greatest pain?

Over a tender abdominal trigger point?

These aren’t minor details.

They may be part of why studies using static magnets sometimes produce different results.

How Does This Compare With the Q Magnets Protocol?

This was the other reason we wanted to take a close look at these papers.

Our current Abdominal and Menstrual Pain Treatment Protocol begins with placement over the lower pelvic region immediately above the pubic bone, with additional magnets used to create greater pelvic coverage.

Placement can also be adjusted according to where discomfort is being experienced.

Our Adjunct Placement approach can then consider more focal areas of tenderness or selected acupuncture and trigger points when appropriate.

There are clear parallels with the published research.

anatomically relevant placement, sufficient exposure and deliberately selected magnetic field configurations.

We have put the complete analysis, including the limitations of the evidence and detailed comparison of the three studies, into a new research page:

Read: Static Magnets for Period Pain What the Research Actually Shows
Read: Abdominal and Menstrual Pain Treatment Guide with Magnetic Therapy

It is considerably more detailed than this MagnaBlog and is intended to become an ongoing research resource as new evidence emerges.

And That Gave Us an Idea…

One of the most interesting things about this research is that the investigators did not all use the same kind of magnet.

So for this MagnaBlog, we wanted to create an offer that lets Q Magnets users access a much broader range of the field configurations discussed in both the published research and our own application protocols.

Women’s Research Special Offer

Purchase the: Q Bonus Package Complex Lower Back Pain

The set already contains:

• 1 × OF50-3 Octapolar Q Magnet

• 2 × QF28-6 Quadrapolar Q Magnets

• 2 × QF28-3 Quadrapolar Q Magnets

• 6 × Q6-1.5 small Q Magnets

• QFix adhesives

• Q Bag

• Information & Treatment Guide

Despite its name, this is much more than a lower-back-only collection.

It provides a selection of different Q Magnet sizes suitable for a range of appropriate joint, muscular and minor pain applications when selected and positioned according to the relevant protocol.

Click on the WOMENSRESEARCH offer

And the following magnets will be added at no additional cost:

BF28-3N
A neodymium bipolar Bio-North magnet with flux plate the Q Magnets field configuration most relevant for comparison with the directional/bipolar-style approach discussed in the Eccles research.

CF28-3
A neodymium alternating-polarity concentric magnet—the configuration particularly relevant to understanding the concentric rare-earth approach investigated by Mayrovitz.

CFBS120 Pack of 2
Flexible approximately 500-gauss magnets using alternating concentric field geometry, providing another useful comparison with the flexible concentric magnets investigated in the chronic pelvic pain research.

Why We Put This Package Together

This isn’t simply about giving away three extra products.

There is an educational point behind the offer.

With the Complex Lower Back Pain Set plus these bonus magnets, you have access to:

• quadrupolar fields

• octapolar fields

• a bipolar field

• neodymium concentric fields

• flexible concentric fields

• different magnet sizes and field depths

That creates an unusually broad collection for understanding one of the most important lessons emerging from static magnetic field research:

Not all magnets create the same field.

It also means the investment isn’t limited to menstrual discomfort.

The magnets in the Complex Lower Back Pain Set are reusable devices designed for repeated use over time. Depending on the condition, model and correct placement, they can also be used according to Q Magnets protocols for appropriate applications involving the lower back and other areas affected by minor aches, muscular soreness or stiffness.

And because the permanent magnets themselves are reusable, this isn’t a treatment that needs to be purchased again every month.

Q Magnets have a minimum stated shelf life of ten years when stored, handled and maintained according to the Instructions for Use, and may retain their magnetic properties beyond that period.

That long service life is one of the practical advantages of passive static-field technology.

The Bigger Point

None of this means every woman with period pain will respond to static magnets.

And it doesn’t mean a woman who is doing well with conventional pain medication needs to stop using it.

Our argument is much simpler.

If someone wants a non-pharmaceutical option for recurring menstrual pain, there is enough published research here to make static magnetic field therapy worthy of serious consideration rather than casual dismissal.

Two randomised dysmenorrhoea studies found significant differences in favour of active magnetic treatment.

A third study found encouraging results in chronic pelvic pain.

And perhaps most importantly, when we look closely at how the researchers achieved those results, we keep arriving back at the same practical variables:

Field. Dose. Placement.

That’s where the evidence starts getting interesting.

Explore the Research

Static Magnets for Period Pain: What the Research Actually Shows

Our new research page examines the Eccles, Mayrovitz and Brown studies in detail—including magnet design, placement, exposure time, outcomes and limitations.

MagnaBlog Women’s Research Offer

Purchase the Q Bonus Package Complex Lower Back Pain

to receive the BF28-3N, CF28-3 and CFBS120 pack at no additional cost.

The magnetic devices provided in the Women's Research Offer will replicate the devices used in the quoted studies. The published study outcomes should not be interpreted as a guarantee of individual results. Use Q Magnets according to the Instructions for Use and seek appropriate medical assessment for severe, persistent, unexplained or changing pelvic pain.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

“The proof is in the placement.”

When static magnets are studied for pain, the details matter. Different fields, different exposure times and, importantly, different placements can produce very different outcomes. The menstrual and pelvic pain studies are a useful reminder that the better question may not be simply “Do magnets work?” but “What field, what dose, and where?”

Featured Articles

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

A few weeks ago, I came across an article ranking prominently in Google for searches around “scientific published reviews for magnetic therapy”.

It is published by Stanford Magnets and titled:

Magnetic Therapy for Pain Relief: A Review of Research and Case Studies.

At first glance, it looks useful.

It discusses static magnets and electromagnetic therapies, lists numerous conditions, quotes scientific studies and finishes with 14 references.

And because I have spent decades working with therapeutic magnets, you might expect me to welcome an article presenting favourable research. But when I started checking the references, some did not appear to support what the article implied. Others were studies of completely different technologies. And some citations, as written, appear to be made up! They certainly don’t correspond to papers in the journals cited.

That matters.

But then there is another side to this story.

One of the papers most frequently used to argue that static magnets don’t relieve pain—the Pittler, Brown and Ernst systematic review published in CMAJ in 2007—raises a different problem.

Its references are real.

Its methodology is vastly more rigorous.

But when you examine the individual studies, very different magnetic devices, field configurations, treatment durations and anatomical applications are placed under the same broad heading of “static magnets.” And some trial summaries reduce considerably more complicated findings to a simple “no significant difference.”

So this week’s MagnaBlog isn’t going to argue that the positive side is right and the sceptics are wrong.

It’s about something more important:

Evidence bias can travel in both directions.

And if we’re serious about understanding static magnetic field therapy, we need to be willing to identify it whichever direction it travels.

First, What Do I Mean by “Bias”?

I am not suggesting deliberate dishonesty.

Scientific bias can be much more subtle.

It can enter when we:

• select studies supporting what we already believe

• classify unlike interventions as though they are equivalent

• focus on one outcome while overlooking another

• describe a statistically non-significant result as though nothing happened

• count “positive studies” without considering their quality

• cite studies of one technology as evidence for another

• accept a reference because it looks scientific without checking the original paper

And that can happen whether you’re trying to prove that magnets work or prove that they don’t.

The Stanford Magnets article provides a useful example from one direction.

Pittler provides an interesting example from the other.

Problem One: Calling Everything “Magnetic Therapy”

To Stanford Magnets’ credit, its article initially makes an important distinction.

It explains that static magnetic field therapy uses permanent magnets, whereas PEMF involves time-varying electromagnetic fields generated by powered equipment.

Good.

They’re not the same intervention.

But once the article begins reviewing the evidence under the heading “Do Magnets Help with Pain?”, those distinctions start disappearing.

Among the favourable examples are:

• PEMF combined with backward walking for low-back pain

• PEMF for shoulder impingement

• electromagnetic field treatment for dysmenorrhea

• repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation (rTMS) for fibromyalgia

• magnetic bead acupressure combined with transcutaneous electrical stimulation after surgery

• magnetic peripheral nerve stimulation for diabetic neuropathic pain

Those may all be interesting studies.

But they are not evidence for static permanent-magnet therapy.

PEMF, rTMS, magnetic peripheral nerve stimulation and a permanent magnet sitting on the skin involve fundamentally different exposure conditions.

You cannot demonstrate the effectiveness of one by citing the effectiveness of another simply because they all involve magnetic fields.

That would be a little like reviewing “light therapy” and treating sunlight, red-light photobiomodulation and surgical lasers as interchangeable interventions.

They all involve light.

But scientifically, that’s nowhere near enough information.

Then I Started Checking the References on the page

At first I was quite excited as there were a few papers, I had never heard of. But soon after, things became more concerning.

Reference 1 is Vallbona’s famous 1997 post-polio study.

That’s real.

Reference 3 is Alfano’s fibromyalgia study.

Also real.

But Reference 2 isn’t actually a research paper at all.

ANC.00006 Biomagnetic Therapy is a medical-policy document published by Anthem. In fact, its current position is that biomagnetic therapy remains “investigational and not medically necessary.”

Then there is this citation:

Lefebvre G, Morissette R, Courtemanche S. “Magnetic therapy for osteoarthritis pain: A meta-analysis of clinical trials.” Journal of Pain Research. 2011;4:89–101.

I have been unable to locate that paper.

More tellingly, the official Journal of Pain Research archive shows that pages 91–101 of Volume 4 were occupied by an entirely different paper:

Progesterone prevents development of neuropathic pain in a rat model: Timing and duration of treatment are critical.

So the Stanford citation, at least as written, cannot be correct.

Another reference attributes a 2016 Pain Medicine paper on “magnetic insoles” for low-back pain to Kwon, Kim and Choi on pages 923–930.

But the actual Volume 17, Issue 5 pagination shows one article ending on page 923 and the next occupying pages 924–930. The citation as presented doesn’t align with the journal issue.

The 2025 Kim citation is also problematic. Stanford lists it as Journal of Physical Therapy Science, Volume 37(2), pages 85–92. Yet the journal’s actual February 2025 issue has one article spanning pages 84–88 and another spanning 89–94.

Again, that doesn’t prove that every underlying idea is wrong.

But it does tell us something important.

A reference list is not evidence until somebody checks the references.

And this is precisely where confirmation bias can favour magnetic therapy.

We see an article saying magnets help pain.

We agree.

There are 14 scientific-looking references underneath it.

We share it.

But if some of those studies are actually PEMF or rTMS studies, and several citations cannot be traced as written, we have inadvertently made the evidence base look stronger than it really is.

That’s something we try to avoid.

Now Let’s Apply Exactly the Same Standard to Pittler

In 2007, Max Pittler, Elizabeth Brown and Edzard Ernst published their systematic review:

Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials.

Their primary meta-analysis included nine randomized controlled trials using a 100 mm visual analogue pain scale.

The overall difference between magnet and placebo groups was not statistically significant.

That result is real.

And the review was far more rigorous than the commercial article I’ve just criticised.

But look at what sits underneath the label “static magnets.”

Pittler’s review included:

• magnetic bracelets

• magnetic necklaces

• mattress pads

• shoe insoles

• flexible magnets

• magnetic sleeves

• magnets taped directly over painful locations

• quadripolar MagnaBloc arrays

Field strengths ranged from approximately 4 to 395 mT.

Exposure periods ranged from less than an hour to several months.

Conditions included osteoarthritis, diabetic neuropathy, fibromyalgia, chronic low-back pain, post-polio pain, foot pain, repetitive strain injury and experimentally induced muscle soreness.

Pittler itself acknowledged substantial clinical heterogeneity arising from different conditions, treatment durations and magnet strengths.

So once again:

Are we actually studying one intervention?

Or have we created one by giving a heterogeneous collection of devices the same name?

The Segal Knee Study Shows How Nuance Disappears

Segal and colleagues studied 64 people with rheumatoid arthritis and persistent knee pain.

The active treatment used quadripolar MagnaBloc devices producing approximately 190 mT fields with steep field gradients.

Importantly, the control wasn’t nonmagnetic.

It was another magnetic device producing a weaker, differently configured field of up to 72 mT.

Pain declined by:

• 40.4% with the quadripolar device

• 25.9% with the magnetic control

The difference between groups for the main pain comparison was not statistically significant: p=.23.

So if someone says:

“Segal did not demonstrate a statistically significant between-group difference in its primary pain comparison.”

That’s fair.

But there was more to the study.

The active group reported a 33% decrease in global assessment of disease activity compared with 2% in the control group.

And:

• 68% of the active-treatment group reported feeling better or much better

• compared with 27% of the control group

Those differences were statistically significant.

Pittler’s table reduces Segal to:

“No significant differences.”

That isn’t necessarily false.

It refers to the pain outcome chosen for the review.

(Interestingly Laakso summarises the exact same study with – “Significantly less pain in treatment group compared to control group; Greater reduction in global assessment of disease activity”.)

But it demonstrates how outcome selection can change the impression left by a study.

“Primary pain endpoint not significantly different” and “no significant differences” do not communicate quite the same thing.

Weintraub Is Even More Interesting

Michael Weintraub and colleagues conducted a much larger study involving people with symptomatic diabetic peripheral neuropathy.

Participants continuously wore multipolar 450 G magnetic insoles or nonmagnetic sham insoles for four months.

Pittler’s table summarizes the study:

“No significant difference at 4 mo.”

Now read the original results.

During months three and four, statistically significant differences favouring the magnetic group were reported for:

• burning

• numbness and tingling

• exercise-induced foot pain

Among people with severe baseline symptoms, numbness and tingling fell by 32% in the magnet group versus 14% with sham, while foot pain declined 41% versus 21%.

Again, that doesn’t mean we should declare Weintraub definitive proof.

There was substantial attrition.

Placebo responses were important.

And these were relatively weak flexible magnets targeting superficial tissues in the foot.

But “no significant difference at four months” clearly doesn’t tell the entire story of the trial.

Brown Shows the Same Problem

Pittler summarizes Brown’s chronic pelvic pain trial as:

“No significant differences.”

The original study is more nuanced.

Thirty-two women completed two weeks and only 19 completed four weeks, so this was a small pilot study.

After four weeks, however, the active-magnet group had statistically better Pain Disability Index and Clinical Global Impression outcomes.

But there was an important problem:

participants receiving active magnets were significantly more likely to correctly identify their treatment.

So blinding had been compromised.

What’s the correct conclusion?

Not:

“Magnets worked.”

And not:

“Nothing happened.”

A fairer interpretation is:

some clinically relevant outcomes favoured the active treatment, but the small sample and compromised blinding substantially limit confidence in the result.

That’s less exciting.

It’s also better science.

And Some Negative Studies Really Were Negative

Collacott’s chronic low-back pain trial is a good example.

Twenty people with longstanding low-back pain used a flexible bipolar magnet producing about 30 mT.

The overall VAS changes were almost identical:

• sham: –0.44

• magnet: –0.49

• p=.90

That’s a negative study.

We shouldn’t try to make it positive.

But we are still entitled to ask what intervention was tested.

It was a relatively weak flexible bipolar magnet used over a condition where important pain-generating structures may lie considerably deeper beneath the skin.

The result therefore tells us something specific:

that device, at that exposure, used in that way, did not outperform placebo in that population.

It does not logically establish that every static magnetic field configuration must fail for low-back pain.

That is where Field | Dose | Placement becomes important.

But Here’s Where We Need to Challenge Our Own Side Too

In 2021, Fan and colleagues published a much more favourable review of static magnetic fields.

Their headline figure is attractive:

64% of the human studies they reviewed showed positive analgesic effects.

They also reported positive findings in all six mouse studies they included and concluded that static magnetic fields showed considerable promise when appropriate parameters were used.

As someone who believes the parameters matter, I naturally find that interpretation interesting.

But I would make exactly the same caution here.

“64% of studies were positive” is not the same as “the treatment is 64% proven.”

A small pilot study and a large randomized controlled trial are not equally weighted because each receives one tick in the “positive” column.

Nor does counting positive and negative studies automatically account for:

• study quality

• sample size

• magnitude of effect

• risk of bias

• publication bias

• quality of blinding

• differences between outcomes

• differences in field characteristics

And six positive animal studies remain six studies.

A 100% success rate sounds impressive, but with a small literature base it should generate interest, not certainty.

Fan does something very useful by paying considerably more attention to field strength, exposure time and pain type than many earlier reviews.

But we shouldn’t turn a favourable review into dogma simply because we prefer its conclusion.

That would be the same mistake in the opposite direction.

Perhaps Laakso Offers a Better Model

One reason I keep returning to Liisa Laakso and colleagues’ 2009 review is that it tried to deal with an issue that much of the literature overlooks.

They explicitly separated studies involving quadripolar magnetic arrays from conventional static magnets because their magnetic field characteristics were substantially different.

That makes sense.

But they didn’t then become advocates.

They also pointed out:

• small study populations

• inadequate controls in some studies

• potential problems with blinding

• confounding variables

• investigator affiliations and financial interests

• the lack of independent replication

In other words:

they recognised that magnetic fields can differ substantially while still demanding better evidence from the more promising configurations.

That is much closer to where I think this field needs to go.

Field | Dose | Placement Is Not an Excuse for Negative Results

This distinction is important.

Field | Dose | Placement should never become a convenient way of saying:

“Whenever a trial is negative, they must have used the wrong magnets.”

That would make the hypothesis impossible to falsify.

Instead, FDP gives us variables that should be defined before the trial begins.

Field

What field configuration was used?

Was it unipolar, bipolar, quadripolar, multipolar or another geometry?

What was the actual spatial field distribution?

Dose

What field reached the intended tissue, not merely the magnet surface?

How long was the exposure?

Was the target superficial or deep?

Placement

Where was the magnet positioned?

What tissue or neural structure was the researcher attempting to expose?

How accurately and consistently was that placement maintained?

Context

What condition was being treated?

Was the pain acute, inflammatory, neuropathic, musculoskeletal or sensitization-related?

Only after defining those variables can we meaningfully ask whether the intervention worked.

The Biggest Problem May Be the Question Itself

For decades, magnetic therapy research has often revolved around one deceptively simple question:

“Do magnets work?”

The Stanford Magnets article can make the answer appear more positive by borrowing evidence from PEMF, rTMS and other technologies and combining them under “magnetic therapy”, while also quoting made up studies.

A sceptical systematic review can move in the opposite direction by aggregating bracelets, mattresses, flexible magnets, insoles and engineered magnetic arrays into the category “static magnets.”

Both approaches lose information.

And once information disappears at the classification stage, even excellent statistics can’t put it back.

A better question is:

“Which magnetic field, at what dose, placed where, for which target, under what clinical circumstances?”

That question will produce positive results sometimes.

It will produce negative results sometimes.

And hopefully it will eventually tell us why.

My Standard Is Simple

I have an obvious interest in this subject.

I’ve worked with therapeutic magnets for decades.

So I probably have more reason than most people to be aware of my own confirmation bias.

That’s why I think we should apply a simple rule:

If we criticise sceptics for selectively interpreting evidence, we must be equally prepared to criticise favourable articles when they overstate it.

Don’t accept a reference because it supports your position.

• Find the paper.

Don’t accept a systematic-review table because it opposes your position.

• Find the paper.

• Check what device was actually used.

• Check the field.

• Check the dose.

• Check the placement.

• Check the comparator.

• Check the endpoint.

• Check what the authors actually concluded.

The objective shouldn’t be to accumulate evidence for magnetic therapy or against magnetic therapy.

It should be to understand the evidence accurately enough to discover where static magnetic fields may, or may not, have a useful biological and clinical effect.

That’s a slower process than arguing from headlines.

But it’s how a credible field develops.

And perhaps the literature has been telling us something for years:

Stop asking whether “magnets” work as though all magnetic interventions are the same.

Start asking what was actually tested.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans and the Q Magnets Team

Further Reading

Pittler MH, Brown EM, Ernst E. Static magnets for reducing pain: systematic review and meta-analysis of randomized trials. CMAJ. 2007;177(7):736–742.

Laakso L, Lutter F, Young C. Static magnets—what are they and what do they do? Rev Bras Fisioter. 2009;13(1):10–23.

Fan Y, Ji X, Zhang L, Zhang X. The analgesic effects of static magnetic fields. Bioelectromagnetics. 2021;42:115–127.

Segal NA, Toda Y, Huston J, et al. Two configurations of static magnetic fields for treating rheumatoid arthritis of the knee: a double-blind clinical trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2001;82:1453–1460.

Weintraub MI, Wolfe GI, Barohn RA, et al. Static magnetic field therapy for symptomatic diabetic neuropathy: a randomized, double-blind, placebo-controlled trial. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2003;84:736–746.

Brown CS, Ling FW, Wan JY, Pilla AA. Efficacy of static magnetic field therapy in chronic pelvic pain: a double-blind pilot study. Am J Obstet Gynecol. 2002;187:1581–1587.

Collacott EA, Zimmerman JT, White DW, Rindone JP. Bipolar permanent magnets for the treatment of chronic low back pain: a pilot study. JAMA. 2000;283:1322–1325.

Weekly Reframe

“The evidence is in the details.”

Research headlines can simplify. Conclusions can persuade. But the real evidence lies in what was actually tested, how it was tested, and what the results really showed.

Whether the findings support our beliefs or challenge them, the standard should be the same.

The evidence is in the details.

Featured Article

Why magnet design matters? Learning from Cow Magnets

Read Full Article

Magnetic Field Gradients

Read Full Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Full Article

Scientists in white coats.

Years of research.

A paper published in a prestigious journal.

Occasionally that’s exactly how it happens.

But many advances begin much more quietly.

With a conversation.

An observation.

Or simply one person asking...

“I wonder what would happen if…”

That question has probably changed medicine more than almost any other.

Earlier this year I wrote about one of my favourite expressions: Strong Opinions, Loosely Held.

It’s a reminder that conviction and curiosity can coexist. We should have the confidence to form opinions, but the humility to change them when better evidence or experience comes along.

To me, that’s one of the defining characteristics of a good clinician.

Not someone who thinks they know everything.

Someone who never stops asking questions.

One story that has stayed with me for many years is how Dr Robert Holcomb first became interested in using magnetic fields for pain.

Dr Holcomb was already a medical doctor with a PhD in pharmacology and training in microbiology. He wasn’t just focused on pain management. He was investigating the use of magnetic fields in water treatment and was intrigued by some of the effects he was observing.

Then came a simple question.

“I wonder if magnetic fields could influence pain?”

Rather than dismiss the thought because it sounded unconventional, he decided to test it.

Drawing on his understanding of magnetic field gradients, he created what became the first quadrupolar magnetic arrangement and applied it to a patient suffering from lower back pain—a police officer.

To his surprise, the patient reported that his pain had completely disappeared while the magnet was in place.

Whether that moment represented the beginning of an entirely new field or simply the start of a much longer journey, Dr Holcomb recognised something important.

There was enough evidence to keep asking questions.

Sometimes that’s how innovation begins.

Not with certainty.

With curiosity.

Over the past twenty-five years, I’ve found myself asking exactly the same questions.

After hearing from thousands of people who have used Q Magnets, and after hundreds of conversations with physiotherapists, chiropractors, acupuncturists, doctors and other health professionals, there are still times when I catch myself wondering...

“Is this really happening?”

Not because I doubt people’s honesty.

Quite the opposite.

Some of the feedback is so remarkable that it deserves to be questioned.

And every time I begin to question myself,, another credible practitioner contacts me with another carefully observed clinical experience.

Not grand claims.

Not marketing hype.

Just thoughtful observations from people whose job is to help patients every day.

Those conversations have shaped my thinking far more than any advertisement ever could.

This weekend I’ll be attending the AACMA Conference, where acupuncturists from across Australia will gather to share ideas, challenge assumptions and discuss what they’re seeing in clinical practice.

I’m looking forward to the presentations.

But if history is any guide, some of the most valuable learning won’t happen in the lecture theatre.

It will happen over coffee.

In the exhibition hall.

Or during a casual conversation where someone quietly says...

“Have you ever tried this?”

Medicine has always advanced that way.

One observation.

One conversation.

One clinician willing to ask a better question.

Recently, another physiotherapist shared an observation that challenged some of my own assumptions.

He admitted he wasn’t getting consistent results with Q Magnets. Some patients improved dramatically, while others seemed to gain little benefit.

Rather than dismiss the technology, he began asking why.

Was it the diagnosis?

The placement?

The type of pain?

Or something else entirely?

That conversation has already prompted some fascinating discussions about Adjunct Placements and how they may influence outcomes in more complex cases.

We’re continuing to explore those ideas together, and once we’ve gathered a little more clinical experience, I’ll share the full story in a future MagnaBlog.

I think you’ll find it just as interesting as I do.

One of the lessons I’ve learned over the years is that medicine doesn’t move forward because someone insists they’re right.

It moves forward because someone remains curious enough to keep asking questions.

Sometimes the biggest breakthroughs don’t begin with a breakthrough at all.

They begin with two simple words.

“I wonder…”


Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

“The important thing is not to stop questioning. Curiosity has its own reason for existing.” — Albert Einstein

Perhaps the greatest innovations in medicine don’t come from people who think they have all the answers.

They come from those who never lose the courage to ask the next question.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

Most people naturally place a Q Magnet exactly where it hurts.

In many cases, that’s exactly where you should begin.

The most painful or tender area is often the best starting point for magnetic field therapy because it places the magnetic field directly over the tissues that are causing the most discomfort.

But experienced practitioners don’t always stop there.

Sometimes, they ask a different question:

“What else could be contributing to this pain?”

That simple shift in thinking can sometimes change the outcome.

Pain Doesn’t Always Tell the Whole Story

Pain is often more complex than it first appears.

The sore spot may be the result of overloaded muscles, tight fascia, irritated nerves, altered movement patterns or structures working together rather than one isolated tissue.

Physiotherapists, osteopaths, chiropractors, massage therapists and acupuncturists have long recognised this principle, even though they may explain it in different ways.

Some look for muscular trigger points.

Others assess movement patterns or biomechanics.

Acupuncturists may select points some distance from the painful area based on traditional acupuncture principles.

Although the approaches differ, they often arrive at a similar conclusion:

Sometimes treating only where it hurts doesn’t provide the best outcome.

A Good Example: Plantar Heel Pain

Plantar fasciitis is a perfect example.

Most people instinctively place a Q Magnet directly over the painful part of the heel or the tender portion of the plantar fascia.

That’s still exactly what we recommend as the primary placement.

But the recently updated Heel Pain & Plantar Fasciitis protocol also includes something new.

It introduces Additional Placement Insights.

Alongside the local heel placement, experienced practitioners may also consider carefully selected distal placements, including:

• Trigger points within the soleus muscle

• Specific acupuncture points that are traditionally associated with the lower leg and foot

These additional placements aren’t intended to replace the local magnet.

They’re designed to complement it.

A Clinical Observation That Prompted Us to Think Differently

A physiotherapist recently shared an interesting clinical observation with us.

One of their patients had been using Q Magnets over the painful plantar fascia with some benefit, but progress had largely plateaued.

Rather than changing the original placement, the practitioner left those magnets exactly where they were.

Then they identified tender trigger points within the soleus muscle and added two more Q Magnets over those areas.

According to the practitioner, that small addition made all the difference.

While this is simply one clinical observation—not formal research—it illustrates an important principle.

Sometimes the most effective application isn’t about replacing the original placement.

It’s about thoughtfully expanding it.

This Principle Has Also Appeared in Research

Interestingly, the idea of looking beyond a painful area isn’t limited to everyday clinical practice.

One of the better-known studies involving multipolar medical magnets examined people living with post-polio syndrome, a condition often associated with persistent muscular pain. Rather than placing magnets randomly, researchers applied specially designed static multipolar magnets directly over carefully identified pain trigger points.

In this double-blind, randomised, placebo-controlled trial, participants receiving the active multipolar magnets reported greater reductions in pain than those receiving placebo devices after just 45 minutes of application.

While post-polio syndrome is very different from plantar heel pain, the study highlights an important principle that experienced practitioners recognise across many musculoskeletal conditions:

Thoughtful placement matters.

It’s not simply about using a magnet—it’s about selecting an appropriate magnetic field and placing it over clinically relevant tissues or trigger points.

If you’d like to explore this landmark study in more detail, we’ve summarised the research here:

👉 Static Magnets Providing Hope for Post-Polio Syndrome Pain Sufferers
https://qmagnets.com/static-magnets-providing-hope-for-post-polio-syndrome-pain-sufferers/

Why Might That Help?

There isn’t one simple explanation.

Pain may involve multiple tissues working together.

A muscle higher up the leg may be contributing to increased tension through the calf and into the plantar fascia.

Trigger points may be influencing discomfort or movement.

Acupuncture points have long been used as part of traditional approaches to support pain and function.

Every person is different.

That’s why experienced practitioners often assess more than just the site of pain before deciding where additional support may be appropriate.

Local Plus Distal

One of the biggest misconceptions is that you must choose one approach or the other.

Local placement.

Or distal placement.

In reality, they’re often used together.

The painful area remains the primary target.

Additional placements simply broaden the overall application based on anatomy, trigger points, acupuncture principles or other clinical findings.

It’s not about putting magnets everywhere.

It’s about placing them with purpose.

Important

While trigger points, acupuncture points and additional placements may complement your Q Magnets application, they are not a substitute for an accurate diagnosis. If your pain is severe, persists, worsens, follows significant trauma, or you are unsure of the cause, seek assessment from an appropriately qualified healthcare professional. Identifying and treating the underlying cause should always take priority over managing symptoms alone.

The Takeaway

If you’re using Q Magnets, start where it hurts.

In many cases, that’s exactly the right place to begin.

But if your progress slows or your condition is more persistent than expected, it may be worth asking a broader question:

Is there somewhere else that could also be contributing?

Sometimes the best results don’t come from moving the original magnet.

Sometimes they come from adding one or two more in carefully selected locations.

Because the goal isn’t simply to chase the pain.

It’s to better understand what the body might be telling us.

Looking Beyond the Pain

The painful area is often the best place to start, but it may not be the only place worth considering.

Where appropriate, experienced practitioners may combine local placement with carefully selected trigger points, acupuncture points, or other related anatomical locations.

This is the thinking behind the new Additional Placement Insights now being added to selected Q Magnets protocol pages helping users understand not just where it hurts, but where additional support may sometimes be beneficial.

👉 Explore the updated Heel Pain & Plantar Fasciitis protocol to see how local and distal placements can be used together.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

“You see, but you do not observe.”
— Sherlock Holmes (Arthur Conan Doyle)

Most people see the painful spot.

Experienced practitioners observe the whole picture.

They don’t ignore the painful area, it usually remains the best place to start. But they also look for related muscles, trigger points, movement patterns and other structures that may be contributing to the problem.

Sometimes the difference isn’t a different magnet.

It’s seeing what was there all along.

Don’t just see the pain. Observe the whole picture.

Featured Articles

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

Last month we reached a milestone.

We shipped Q Magnets to Lebanon, making it the 75th country we’ve now supplied around the world.

Seventy-five.

When I first began experimenting with multipolar medical magnets all those years ago, I never imagined a small Australian business would eventually be sending magnets to people on every habitable continent.

But as I reflected on that milestone, I realised something.

I’ve never really been interested in counting countries.

What has always fascinated me are the people within those countries.

Because behind every parcel is a person with a story.

Sometimes it’s someone living with chronic pain.

Sometimes it’s an elite athlete searching for another recovery tool.

Sometimes it’s a physiotherapist, doctor or acupuncturist asking thoughtful questions that challenge how I think.

And occasionally it’s someone who simply loves science and wants to understand how these little magnets might interact with the human body.

Those people have shaped Q Magnets just as much as I have.

Lebanon: Our 75th Country

Reaching Lebanon wasn’t straightforward.

There was no practical shipping route from Australia, so the magnets first travelled to a friend in the United States before finally making their way to Beirut.

When they eventually arrived, Rafif H sent me a wonderful email.

Rather than simply thanking us for the magnets, she wrote about being fascinated by their strength despite their compact size.

She was intrigued by the quadrupolar magnetic profile.

She wanted to investigate the published literature, explore possible effects on water and seed germination, try them personally, introduce them to health professionals and even show them to her physics students.

That email reminded me why I’ve always loved what I do.

Curiosity is contagious.

Every Country Has Taught Us Something

Over the years we’ve met extraordinary people in places I never expected.

In Auckland, physiotherapist Doug Edwards has helped demonstrate how thoughtful clinical application can improve outcomes, particularly when practitioners understand that successful use depends on far more than simply sticking a magnet over where it hurts.

Those conversations reinforced something that would eventually become our Field | Dose | Placement framework, a reminder that outcomes may depend on the interaction between the magnetic field, exposure time and anatomical placement, rather than on magnet strength alone.

In the Netherlands, Mayon Roeffen and the team at KR8 embraced Q Magnets with enormous enthusiasm, eventually leading to the establishment of QMagnets.nl and introducing many more Dutch practitioners to the technology.

Across Canada, John Stan and Kelly Kitchen from Eastern Currents became valued partners, distributing Q Magnets through their Vancouver-based health products business to acupuncturists and other health professionals. Through their enthusiasm and education, many practitioners were introduced to Q Magnets as a practical, conservative adjunct to the therapies they already used.

These weren’t distributors first.

They were educators.

They were clinicians.

They were curious people asking good questions.

Learning From the World’s Best

Some collaborations have taken us into entirely different worlds.

Working alongside elite athletes taught us that recovery is every bit as important as performance.

Conversations with sports professionals weren’t about miracle cures.

They were about helping athletes recover well enough to train again tomorrow.

Other relationships introduced us to military medicine, medical acupuncture, rehabilitation science and emerging ideas around nervous system modulation.

Meeting pioneers such as Dr Richard Niemtzow and participating in international medical conferences expanded our thinking well beyond what any one clinic or country could have achieved.

Every conversation added another piece to the puzzle.

Different Perspectives, Shared Curiosity

Not every collaboration has come from people who think alike.

Some practitioners approach pain through biomechanics.

Others through acupuncture.

Others through biomagnetism, neuroscience or rehabilitation.

We don’t have to agree on everything.

In fact, many of the most rewarding discussions have begun with different viewpoints.

When thoughtful people are willing to explore ideas together, everyone learns.

Several MagnaBlog articles over recent years have grown directly from those conversations, whether discussing why magnet placement sometimes changes as pain changes, exploring the relationship between biological and emotional influences on pain, reflecting on healthy ageing and recovery, or sharing insights from conferences and long-standing collaborations around the world. Those stories all share a common thread: curiosity leads to better questions, and better questions often lead to better understanding.

More Than 75 Dots on a Map

People occasionally ask me which country has become our biggest market.

That’s never really interested me.

What stays with me are the individuals.

The doctor who emailed after trying Q Magnets on a difficult patient.

The physiotherapist who discovered a different placement worked better than expected.

The acupuncturist who connected our magnets with ideas from another discipline.

The teacher who wanted to show them to physics students.

The athlete who simply wanted to get back on the field.

Those people have collectively shaped the way I think about multipolar medical magnets, static field therapy and recovery far more than any sales report ever could.

The Real Milestone

So yes, Lebanon became our 75th country.

But I don’t see seventy-five coloured pins on a map.

I see seventy-five opportunities to learn.

Seventy-five collections of conversations.

Seventy-five communities of curious people.

And countless friendships that have helped transform a small Australian idea into an international exchange of knowledge.

For that, I’m deeply grateful.

Here’s to the people we’ll meet in country number 76.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

“A shipment delivers a product. Curiosity begins the journey.”

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

I have spent many hours counting shorebirds such as the Pacific Golden Plover, Eastern Curlew, Bar-tailed Godwit, Grey-tailed Tattler, Red Knot, Terek Sandpiper and the tiny Red-necked Stint.

Many of these birds migrate around 10,000 kilometres to reach Australian shores. Some cross vast stretches of open ocean, yet return to the same estuary, mudflat or harbour year after year.

How on Earth do they find their way?

The Sun, stars, landmarks and even smell may all contribute. But Earth’s magnetic field appears to provide another important part of the answer.

That is remarkable because Earth’s magnetic field is extremely weak.

So weak, in fact, that for many years it seemed impossible that the warm, noisy chemistry of a living body could detect it.

Yet the birds clearly can.

And the emerging explanation may have important implications for how we think about static magnetic fields and biology.

The Stars Are Still There During the Day

Think about the stars.

They do not disappear when the Sun rises. Their light is still reaching us, but the much brighter sunlight overwhelms their weak signal and makes them invisible.

Scientists once viewed Earth’s magnetic field in a similar way.

Inside a living body, molecules are constantly moving, vibrating and colliding. Compared with all this thermal activity, the magnetic influence of Earth’s field appears almost insignificant.

It should be lost in the noise.

But bird navigation tells us that biology has found a way to detect it.

A Weak Field Does Not Need to Power the Reaction

The leading explanation is known as the radical pair mechanism.

The name sounds complicated, but the central idea is surprisingly simple.

A magnetic field may not need to provide the energy that powers a chemical reaction. That energy may already have come from light, metabolism or another chemical process.

The magnetic field may only need to influence which direction the reaction takes.

Imagine a train approaching a railway junction.

The locomotive provides the enormous energy needed to move the train. But only a small movement of the railway points is needed to send it down a different track.

The small force does not power the train.

It changes its destination.

A weak magnetic field may sometimes do something similar within a chemical reaction.

The tiny fly in Professor Peter Hore’s illustration represents the weak magnetic influence. It does not move the entire chemical reaction by force. It may simply help determine which product is formed.

This week’s MagnaBlog is a simplified summary of our in-depth article on bird magnetoreception and static field therapy.

How Might a Bird See a Magnetic Field?

The current leading theory involves a light-sensitive protein called cryptochrome, found in the bird’s eye.

When light activates cryptochrome, a brief chemical reaction occurs. Earth’s magnetic field may slightly influence the outcome of that reaction.

If these proteins are arranged throughout the retina, the bird may receive a pattern that changes according to the direction it is facing.

It may not experience magnetism as a compass needle pointing north.

Instead, it may see a faint pattern, shadow or change in contrast layered over its normal vision.

The complete mechanism has not yet been proven, but magnetically sensitive cryptochrome chemistry has been demonstrated in laboratory research involving migratory birds.

Watch Peter Hore Explain the Bird’s Magnetic Compass

What Does This Have to Do With Mitochondria?

Radical reactions are not limited to the bird’s eye.

They occur throughout biology, particularly wherever electrons are being transferred from one molecule to another.

That makes the mitochondria especially interesting.

Mitochondria are often called the powerhouses of our cells. They move electrons through a chain of reactions to help produce ATP, the chemical energy used by muscles, nerves and almost every repair process in the body.

During this activity, mitochondria also produce small amounts of reactive oxygen species.

These molecules are often associated with oxidative stress, but in controlled amounts they also act as important biological signals. They help regulate adaptation, inflammation, cell communication and responses to stress.

Some researchers have proposed that certain short-lived reactions involving these molecules could be magnetically sensitive.

Laboratory studies have also reported that relatively weak static magnetic fields can influence mitochondrial respiration and reactive oxygen species under particular conditions.

This does not prove that Q Magnets work by changing mitochondrial activity.

But it does show that mitochondria are one scientifically plausible place to investigate how static magnetic fields might interact with living systems.

The radical-pair mechanism is well developed as an explanation for bird magnetoreception. Similar reactions inside mitochondria remain an emerging hypothesis.

Biology May Respond Within a Window

One of the most important lessons from this research is that biological responses do not always increase as the field becomes stronger.

In some experiments, the response rises within a particular field range and then falls again.

This is known as a window of response.

It challenges the simplistic idea that:

stronger magnet = greater biological effect

Instead, the result may depend on:

• the type and shape of the field

• the duration of exposure

• the depth and type of tissue

• the exact placement

• the condition of the tissue or nervous system

This fits closely with the Q Magnets framework of:

Field | Dose | Placement

Field
Not all magnetic fields are the same. Q Magnets use engineered multipolar arrangements that create localised fields and steep spatial gradients.

Dose
Dose includes more than magnetic strength. It also includes magnet size, exposure time, tissue depth and cumulative use.

Placement
The field must reach the relevant anatomical region. A well-designed magnet in the wrong place may provide little useful exposure.

This is why Q Magnets should not be compared with generic magnetic bracelets or flexible magnetic sheets simply because they all contain magnets.

The field environment is different.

What This Means for Q Magnets

We are not claiming that bird magnetoreception proves how Q Magnets work.

Nor should we claim that radical-pair chemistry or mitochondrial effects are established mechanisms of Q Magnets.

They are not yet proven.

But this research does weaken one of the oldest objections to static magnetic field therapy:

“The field is too weak to influence biology.”

Birds detect Earth’s field, which is dramatically weaker than the localised fields produced by Q Magnets.

The radical pair mechanism shows how a weak magnetic field may influence biology without overpowering thermal energy or supplying the energy for the reaction.

It may simply alter the probability of what happens next.

That does not provide the final answer.

But it tells us the question is no longer:

“Can a weak static magnetic field possibly matter?”

The more useful question is:

“Under what biological conditions might a particular field, dose and placement influence the system?”

Nature Has Already Shown Us It Is Possible

A Red-necked Stint weighs little more than a few coins.

Yet it can travel thousands of kilometres across a changing planet and find its way back to a familiar stretch of coast.

The magnetic signal helping guide it is extraordinarily weak.

But weak does not mean irrelevant.

Nature has already shown us that living systems can detect and use magnetic information in ways science is only beginning to understand.

There is still much we do not know about radical pairs, mitochondria, field gradients and static field therapy.

There may also be mechanisms we have barely considered and keep us curious.

Because sometimes the weakest signal can still help determine the direction.

Further Reading

1. Rodgers, C.T. “Magnetic Field Effects in Chemical Systems.” Pure and Applied Chemistry. 2009;81:19–43.

2. Xu, J., et al. “Magnetic Sensitivity of Cryptochrome 4 from a Migratory Songbird.” Nature. 2021;594:535–540.

3. Zadeh-Haghighi, H., and Simon, C. “Magnetic Field Effects in Biology from the Perspective of the Radical Pair Mechanism.” Journal of the Royal Society Interface. 2022;19:20220325.

4. Pooam, M., et al. “HEK293 Cell Response to Static Magnetic Fields via the Radical Pair Mechanism.” PLOS ONE. 2020;15:e0243038.

5. Luo, J. “Sensitivity Enhancement of Radical-Pair Magnetoreceptors as a Result of Spin Decoherence.” Journal of Chemical Physics. 2024;160:074306.
   

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

A weak influence does not need to power a system if it can change which path the system takes.

Featured Article

How Birds Sense Earth’s Magnetic Field and What It May Teach Us About Static Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

For months now, I’ve been seeing the same advertisement appear in the New York Times.

It’s for one of those futuristic LED face masks.

You know the type.

It promises healthier skin, fewer wrinkles and a more youthful appearance, provided you’re willing to sit there wearing it for twenty minutes every day.

Now, I'm certainly not suggesting it's a bad product. In fact, LED photobiomodulation is a valuable recovery technology and one that can sit very comfortably alongside static magnetic field therapy.

But every time I see the advertisement, I find myself thinking about something else.

I know more than one person who bought one with every intention of using it regularly.

They did...

For a few weeks.

Perhaps a month.

Then it quietly disappeared into the cupboard.

Not necessarily because it didn’t work.

Because life happened.

Work became busy.

Grandchildren arrived.

The garden needed attention.

The novelty wore off.

Like so many health products, it simply required one more thing to remember.

The Real Challenge Isn’t Always the Technology

One of the biggest challenges in healthcare isn’t always whether a treatment has the potential to help.

It’s whether people actually keep using it.

Behavioural scientists sometimes refer to this as friction.

Every health intervention has a certain amount of friction.

• You have to remember it.

• You have to make time for it.

• You have to interrupt your day.

• You have to stay motivated.
  

The more effort something requires, the more likely it is to slowly drift to the back of the cupboard.

That’s simply human nature.

We all have good intentions.

Life just gets busy.

Why Some Recovery Tools Fit Real Life Better

Over more than twenty years of working with Q Magnets, we’ve noticed something rather interesting.

People rarely tell us they stopped using them because they became disappointed.

More often, they stopped because they simply didn’t need them anymore.

The magnets went back into the medicine cabinet.

Not forgotten forever.

Just waiting.

Waiting for the next gardening marathon.

The next weekend of golf.

The heavy lift while helping a neighbour.

An old sports injury reminding you it still exists.

Or the occasional flare-up that catches you by surprise.

Then the cupboard opens again.

The magnets quietly return to work.

Perhaps that’s one of the advantages of a low-friction recovery tool.

It doesn’t demand your attention every day.

It’s simply there when life does.

What If You Didn’t Have to Remember at All?

If there’s one product that perfectly illustrates this idea, it’s probably the Q Blanket.

One of the biggest barriers to any recovery routine isn’t the treatment itself.

It’s remembering AND making the effort to do it.

The Q Blanket almost removes that barrier entirely.

• You don’t need to schedule another session.

• You don’t need to set a reminder.

• You don’t need to charge batteries.

• You don’t need to stop what you’re doing.
  

You simply go to bed.

For many people living with persistent pain, bedtime is when discomfort becomes most noticeable anyway. Rather than adding another task to an already busy day, the Q Blanket works with something you’re already going to do—sleep.

That’s about as low-friction as recovery gets.

Of course, the Q Blanket doesn’t replace targeted Q Magnets when precise placement over a particular nerve or painful area is required. They serve different purposes.

But for people looking for a simple way to support overnight comfort, it’s hard to imagine a routine that asks less of you.

Sometimes the easiest habit is the one that doesn’t feel like a habit at all.

“I Forgot I Was Supposed to Be in Pain”

Recently we received an email from Connie, a 69-year-old caregiver.

She had injured her own lower back while helping reposition her bed-bound partner.

Anyone who has cared for a loved one knows that when the caregiver is injured, it’s not just their own wellbeing that’s affected. Their ability to care for someone else is suddenly compromised as well.

Connie first tried the homeopathic creams she normally relied upon.

When they didn’t seem to help, she suddenly remembered her Q Magnets.

She applied two OF50-3 magnets along with two OF28-3 magnets over each kidney region.

Then she wrote something that genuinely made me smile.

“I soon forgot I was supposed to be in pain!”

What a wonderful sentence.

She wasn’t monitoring pain scores or analysing symptoms.

She simply became absorbed in getting on with life again.

Perhaps that’s what happens when discomfort no longer occupies the front of your mind.

Connie went on to write:

“Now I feel uplifted, positive and good about life. I feel defeated when I cannot help take care of her in the way she needs.”

That reminds us that recovery isn’t always about returning to sport or getting back to work.

Sometimes it’s about being able to care for the person who depends on you.

Sometimes Practitioners Forget Too

Interestingly, it isn’t only patients who forget.

Health professionals do too.

Recently, practitioner Lesley Wood shared that she had use Q Magnets years ago...

...then simply forgot about it.

Not because she had concluded it didn’t work.

Life moved on.

Other techniques filled her clinical toolbox.

Then she was treating a patient with persistent chronic back pain. Despite making good progress with manual therapy, the patient still had ongoing discomfort.

Suddenly she remembered the magnets.

She later wrote:

“I used magnets years ago and then forgot about them until recently.”

That probably resonates with many clinicians.

Over the course of a career, practitioners accumulate dozens of useful techniques.

Sometimes an old tool simply waits quietly until the right patient reminds you it’s there.

Then There’s Silvano

Perhaps no story illustrates this better than Silvano.

More than twenty years after surviving a life-changing helicopter accident...

He’s still using the very same magnets.

Not every day.

Not because he’s dependent on them.

Because they’re there when life reminds him he needs them.

In a world increasingly filled with disposable gadgets, rechargeable devices and monthly subscriptions, there’s something rather reassuring about having a trusted recovery tool waiting quietly in the cupboard.

Maybe We’ve Been Asking the Wrong Question

People often ask,

“Does this product work?”

That’s certainly an important question.

But perhaps an equally important one is:

“Will I actually use it?”

The most sophisticated technology in the world won’t help if it becomes another forgotten gadget sitting in a drawer.

The best recovery tools are often the ones that fit naturally into everyday life.

The ones that don’t ask for constant attention.

The ones that quietly support you when you need them.

Whether that’s a couple of Q Magnets ready for the next flare-up...

...or a Q Blanket that’s already waiting on your bed every night.

Perhaps that’s why so many emails we receive begin with the same words:

“I remembered my magnets...”

And every now and then, we’re lucky enough to receive one that says something even better:

“I forgot I was supposed to be in pain.”

That’s the kind of forgetting most of us would be happy to experience.

If your Q Magnets have been sitting quietly in the cupboard for a while, perhaps that’s not a sign they’ve been forgotten.

Perhaps it’s a sign they’ve already done their job.

And if life throws another long day in the garden, a sporting injury, an unexpected flare-up or simply reminds you that you’re not quite as young as you used to be, you’ll know exactly where to find them.

Because sometimes the best recovery tool isn’t the one with the most impressive technology.

It’s the one that fits so naturally into real life that, when you need it, using it is almost effortless.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

We often assume the best recovery tool is the one with the most impressive technology.

But technology isn’t usually what determines success.

Human behaviour does.

The treatments that become part of our lives are rarely the ones that demand the most attention.

They’re the ones that quietly fit around the life we’re already living.

Perhaps the best recovery tool isn’t the one that does the most...

It’s the one you’ll still be using six months from now.

Featured Article

Magnetic Mattress Pads helping provide support for those suffering pain

Read Article

Why magnet design matters? Learning from Cow Magnets

Read Full Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Full Article

One of the most interesting observations we’ve made over more than 20 years of working with Q Magnets is this:

Occasionally, someone will tell us,

“The magnet worked brilliantly at first... then it seemed to stop working.”

It’s a perfectly reasonable conclusion.

After all, people using other therapies sometimes experience exactly that.

For example, users of TENS machines may notice that the familiar tingling sensation becomes less obvious with continued use. The medical term for this is accommodation, where the nervous system becomes less responsive to a constant stimulus.

So it’s understandable that someone using Q Magnets might wonder whether the same thing has happened.

But before concluding that your body has “got used to” the magnet, we’d encourage you to ask a much simpler question.

Has anything changed?

Sometimes the Magnet Hasn’t Changed... Its Position Has

This is something we see most often with lower back pain.

Unlike a shoulder, elbow or knee, you can’t easily see the magnets on your own back.

• They may have been removed after showering.

• The adhesive might have loosened.

• A partner may have replaced the magnet after cleaning the skin.

• Or the magnet simply rotated or moved a few millimetres without anyone noticing.

Most people would never think that such a small change could matter.

Yet over the years we’ve seen enough examples to know that it sometimes does.

This is one of the reasons we place so much emphasis on Field | Dose | Placement (FDP).

Peter’s Story

One of our favourite examples comes from a physiotherapy patient.

After years of persistent lower back pain, Peter finally began experiencing something he hadn’t felt for a very long time.

Pain-free moments.

He could sit longer.

Driving became easier.

Perhaps most importantly, he began to feel hopeful again.

Then everything changed.

His pain gradually returned.

He was understandably disappointed and assumed the improvement had simply been temporary.

When he returned to his physiotherapist, however, something unexpected was discovered.

His wife had removed the magnet to clean the skin and replace the tape.

Without either of them realising it, the magnet had been replaced the wrong way around.

Instead of the active surface facing the body, the yellow label side (with the steel flux plate) was against the skin, substantially reducing the magnetic field reaching the intended tissues.

The placement orientation was corrected.

Very quickly, his symptoms began to settle again.

What makes this observation particularly interesting is that Peter never knew the magnet had been replaced incorrectly.

As far as he was concerned, nothing had changed.

• His expectations hadn’t changed.

• His treatment hadn’t changed.

• Only the placement had changed.

That doesn’t prove how static magnetic fields work, nor does it eliminate every possible explanation.

But it is a strong clinical observation that is difficult to explain by expectation alone. If the response had been driven purely by placebo, you might not expect symptoms to worsen when the patient was completely unaware that anything had changed, and then improve again once the placement was corrected.

You can read Peter’s full case study here:

https://lifestyle.physio/pain/magnetic-therapy/402.html

Peter Stanton Has Seen the Same Thing

Sports physiotherapist Peter Stanton tells remarkably similar stories from his years working with elite athletes.

Professional athletes train hard.

• They sweat.

• They shower.

• Tape loosens.

• Magnets move.

Occasionally an athlete would return disappointed, convinced the magnet had “stopped working”.

Peter’s first response wasn’t to change the treatment.

He checked the placement.

Quite often, the magnet had simply shifted slightly from the intended location.

Once it was repositioned correctly, many athletes reported that the benefits returned.

Again, these athletes had no reason to believe that moving the magnet a few millimetres would make any difference.

Yet repeated clinical experience suggested that it sometimes did.

Like Peter’s (the patient) experience, these observations don’t prove a mechanism.

But together they form a consistent pattern that suggests there may be much more occurring than expectation alone.

One athlete understood the importance of accurate placement enough, that she solved the problem permanently.

An international triathlete whose symptoms responded best when the magnet was positioned over a very specific point around her L4/L5 spine decided to have a small turtle tattoo placed exactly where the magnet belonged.

From then on, whether it was her physiotherapist, coach, partner or support crew applying the magnet, everyone knew precisely where to place it.

Sometimes the simplest stories are the most memorable.

If you’d like to hear Peter describe these clinical observations himself, you can watch his practitioner education video here…

Why We Teach Field | Dose | Placement

One of the biggest misconceptions about magnetic therapy is that placement doesn’t really matter - that as long as the magnet is somewhere near the painful area, the result should be much the same.

In reality, placing a magnet where it hurts is often an excellent place to start. In fact, many of the published clinical cases involving multipolar medical magnets describe the magnets being placed directly over the patient’s area of greatest pain or tenderness.

Experienced practitioners will often use palpation to identify the most tender point, allowing them to refine the placement even further.

However, pain isn’t always felt exactly where the underlying problem originates. Referred pain, altered movement patterns and central sensitisation can all influence where symptoms are experienced. In those situations, the most effective placement may not always be the most painful spot.

That’s why we teach Field | Dose | Placement as a clinical framework. It doesn’t replace good clinical reasoning, it helps guide it. Sometimes the most painful point is exactly where the magnet belongs. Sometimes a small adjustment, even just a few millimetres, can make all the difference.

Before Assuming Your Magnet Has Stopped Working...

If your Q Magnet doesn’t seem to be providing the same benefit it did initially, ask yourself:

• Has the tape loosened?

• Has the magnet rotated?

• Has it slipped even a few millimetres?

• Has someone removed and replaced it after showering?

• Is the correct side still facing the skin?

• Has the location of your pain changed as your condition has improved?

Sometimes, a careful review of placement is all that’s needed.

We’d Love to Hear Your Story

Have you ever discovered that a Q Magnet had shifted without you realising?

Did repositioning it seem to make a difference?

Or have you developed your own way of ensuring it always goes back in exactly the right place?

We’d love to hear your experience.

Every real-world story helps us better understand how people use Q Magnets in everyday life, and helps us continue improving the educational resources we provide for both patients and practitioners.

The next time you think your Q Magnet has stopped working, don’t immediately assume your body has become used to it.

First, ask a simpler question.

Has anything changed?

Sometimes the answer isn’t the magnet at all.

Sometimes it’s Field. Dose. Placement.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

Q Magnets Weekly Reframe

Helping you think differently about pain, recovery and the science of precision multipolar medical magnets.

Don’t ask...

“Have my Q Magnets stopped working?”

Ask instead...

“Has anything changed?”

Before assuming your body has become accustomed to the magnets, check the simplest possibilities first:

✔ Has the magnet rotated?
✔ Has it moved a few millimetres?
✔ Has someone reapplied it after showering?
✔ Is it still over the intended treatment area?

Sometimes the answer isn’t the magnet at all.

Sometimes it’s Field. Dose. Placement.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

When most people hear the words magnetic therapy, they usually picture something simple: a magnet, placed on a painful area, either “working” or “not working.”

But that is not how the better research reads.

And it is certainly not how we think about it at Q Magnets.

A good example surfaced in an older article published in American Family Physician. The article summarised a Harvard-affiliated pilot study by Wolsko and colleagues looking at static magnets for osteoarthritis of the knee.

The headline was straightforward enough: Magnet therapy appeared to produce short-term pain relief in knee osteoarthritis.

But the most interesting part of the study was not the headline.

It was the device.

The active sleeve used in the study was not just a generic magnet strapped to the knee. The researchers had gone to considerable effort to design a high-strength magnetic knee sleeve that exposed the knee to both high field intensity and high field gradients.

In other words, the study was not really testing “a magnet” in the everyday sense.

It was testing a deliberately engineered magnetic field environment.

That distinction matters.

The Problem With Asking, “Do Magnets Work?”

The usual public conversation around magnets is far too blunt.

People ask:

“Do magnets work for knee pain?”

But that question skips over the variables that may matter most.

· What kind of magnet?

· What field configuration?

· How strong is the field at the target tissue?

· How quickly does the field change across space?

· Where is the magnet placed?

· How long is it worn?

· Is the painful structure superficial or deep?

· Is the pain mainly local tissue irritation, sensitized nerve behaviour, or part of a broader pain pattern?

These are not minor details.

They may be the whole conversation.

This is why Q Magnets uses the Field | Dose | Placement framework. It moves the question away from generic magnetic therapy and toward something more useful:

Under what conditions might a static magnetic field environment influence pain, recovery, or nervous system behaviour?

What the Wolsko Knee Study Helps Us See

The Harvard Medical School/Wolsko knee study is often summarised as a simple magnetic therapy trial. But when you look more closely, several details stand out.

The researchers were concerned about proper blinding. That is important because static magnet trials are notoriously difficult to blind. If a participant can test whether the device sticks to metal, the placebo becomes obvious.

This is what researchers call unblinding.

So the researchers created a clever sham sleeve that still appeared magnetic from the outside, but directed little meaningful field toward the knee joint.

That is good trial design, and it is similar in principle to the approach used by Segal and colleagues in their study of multipolar static magnets for rheumatoid arthritis of the knee.

But the most interesting detail is how Wolsko and colleagues described the active sleeve.

They did not only describe it in terms of magnetic strength. They also described the gradient.

The active knee sleeve exposed a large adult knee to magnetic field intensities ranging from about 40 to 850 Gauss, with magnetic gradients reported as high as 100 G/mm. The authors noted that these gradients were in the same general order of magnitude as in-vitro gradients associated with suppression of sustained action potential firing in earlier laboratory work by Cavopol.

That is the part most people miss.

Even the American Family Physician POEM summary does not mention field gradients. Most clinicians reading it would likely walk away thinking the study was simply about “high-strength magnets.”

But strength alone is not the whole story.

A field gradient refers to how quickly the magnetic field changes from one point in space to another.

In plain language, it is not just “how strong is the field?”

It is also:

“How much does the field vary across the tissue?”

That spatial variation is especially relevant when discussing multipolar magnets, because alternating polarity designs can create more complex field environments than a simple north-south magnet.

Why Multipolar Magnets Are Different

Most people have heard of magnets.

Very few have heard of multipolar magnets.

When I speak with members of the public or health professionals, I often ask who has heard of multipolar magnets. Almost no one puts their hand up.

That tells us something.

People are not necessarily rejecting the idea of magnetic therapy. In many cases, they have never been introduced to the important design questions.

A simple bipolar magnet has a north and south pole. A multipolar magnet uses multiple poles arranged in a specific configuration. Q Magnets use engineered multipolar designs such as quadrupolar, hexapolar, octapolar, and alternating polarity concentric ring configurations.

These designs are not just aesthetic.

They are intended to create localized field gradients and more complex magnetic field geometry. That may be one reason why lumping all “magnets” together is scientifically unhelpful.

A weak flexible magnetic sheet, a fridge magnet, a simple bipolar disc, and a precision multipolar medical magnet should not automatically be treated as equivalent.

They are different field environments.

What the Laboratory Research Suggests

The field-gradient discussion becomes especially interesting when we look at the earlier Vanderbilt/McLean/Cavopol work.

In cultured sensory neurons, researchers observed that static magnetic fields generated by arrays of permanent magnets could influence sustained action potential firing. Importantly, the effect appeared to depend strongly on spatial variation in the field.

This does not mean we can simply jump from a laboratory dish to a human knee and claim the same thing is happening.

We should not do that.

But it does provide a plausible reason to take field geometry seriously.

If certain biological interactions depend more on spatial field variation than on raw field strength alone, then the old question “How many gauss is it?” becomes too simplistic.

A better question is:

What field is being created at the relevant tissue, and is the placement appropriate for the pain pattern?

What Knee Pain Testimonials Can Teach Us

Customer testimonials are not the same as controlled clinical trials.

But they are still valuable when they are used correctly.

The most useful testimonials do not simply say, “My knee felt better.” They help us understand the real-world pattern:

· Where was the discomfort?

· Where were the magnets placed?

· How long were they worn?

· Was the change immediate, gradual, or inconsistent?

· Did walking, stairs, sleep, or confidence with movement improve?

· Was the result sustained, or did the magnets need to be reapplied?

This is where published studies and customer experience can complement each other.

Studies help us ask whether an effect can be detected under controlled conditions.

Testimonials help us understand how people actually use magnets in daily life.

We have received many authentic knee pain testimonials over the years. One example involving knee osteoarthritis and Q Magnets was also published in Medical Acupuncture, and several other knee pain stories are collected on the Q Magnets website.

These stories are not proof that every knee pain case will respond the same way.

But they do remind us that application details matter.

For knee pain, practical context is especially important. Knees are not simple structures. Pain may arise from the joint line, patellofemoral region, soft tissue irritation, tendon attachment areas, referred patterns, or sensitized nerves around the knee. A single placement may not suit every case.

That is why Field | Dose | Placement is not a marketing slogan.

It is a practical framework.

For readers who want the practical knee pain guide, the Primary Page is here:

Magnetic Therapy for Knee Pain Using Q Magnets

You can also read several knee pain experiences here:

Using Magnetic Field Therapy to Put Knee Replacement Surgery on the Backburner

Even one published in a medical journal…
https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1089/acu.2022.29203.rcn?cf-mal-redirected=true&

Why the Wolsko Study Still Matters

The Wolsko study did not provide a sweeping answer.

The short-term results were encouraging. The authors concluded that, despite the small sample size, magnets showed statistically significant benefit compared with placebo after four hours under rigorously controlled conditions.

But at six weeks, the difference between active and sham groups was not statistically significant.

Some people may read that and say, “So magnets do not work.”

Others may say, “They clearly work.”

Both interpretations are too simplistic.

The more useful interpretation is this:

The study suggests that static magnetic field therapy for knee osteoarthritis deserves careful investigation, especially when field characteristics, gradients, dose, placement, and placebo design are properly described.

It also reminds us that pain is not one thing. Knee osteoarthritis pain can involve local tissue changes, inflammation, mechanical load, sensitized nerve endings, and central pain processing.

A magnetic device is not a replacement for strength work, weight management, mobility, medical assessment, or appropriate professional care.

But it may be a useful non-pharmaceutical support tool for some people, particularly when the application is thoughtful.

The Practical Takeaway

The next time someone asks, “Do magnets work for knee pain?” the best answer may be:

“It depends what kind of magnet, what kind of field, what dose, and where it is placed.”

That is not a dodge.

It is a more scientific answer.

A multipolar medical magnet is not just a stronger version of a fridge magnet. It is an engineered field-based recovery tool designed to create a localized static magnetic field environment.

For some people with knee pain, the right application may help reduce discomfort enough to move more confidently, sleep more comfortably, or participate more easily in rehabilitation.

For others, especially where the pain is complex, severe, structural, or referred from elsewhere, magnets may be only one small part of the picture.

The important step is to stop treating all magnets as the same.

· Field geometry matters.

· Dose matters.

· Placement matters.

· Context matters.

And when we understand those variables, the conversation becomes much more useful.

References

• Cavopol, A. V., A. W. Wamil, et al. (1995). “Measurement and analysis of static magnetic fields that block action potentials in cultured neurons.” Bioelectromagnetics 16(3): 197-206. PMID 7677796; doi:10.1002/bem.2250160308

• Segal, N. A., Y. Toda, et al. (2001). “Two configurations of static magnetic fields for treating rheumatoid arthritis of the knee: a double-blind clinical trial.” Arch Phys Med Rehabil 82(10): 1453-1460. PMID 11588753; doi:10.1053/apmr.2001.24309

• Wolsko PM, et al. (2004). “Double-blind placebo-controlled trial of static magnets for the treatment of osteoarthritis of the knee: results of a pilot study.” Altern Ther Health Med. Mar-Apr;10(2):36-43. PMID: 15055092”

  
  Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
  James Hermans
  and the Q Magnets Team

The Weekly Reframe

Not all magnets are the same.

And not all knee pain is the same.

The better question is not simply whether magnetic therapy works.

The better question is whether the right field is being applied, at the right dose, in the right place, for the right pain pattern.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

It is one of the most common questions we receive about Q Magnets.

Customers ask it after their first purchase. Practitioners ask it when they begin using Q Magnets with patients. People living with long-term pain ask it because they want to know whether they should expect a change in minutes, hours, days, or weeks.

It sounds like a simple question.

But it is not really one question.

It is several questions hiding inside one:

How long before they begin to work?

How long should I keep wearing them once I feel better?

When should I remove them?

And if the pain returns, does that mean I am dependent on them?

To help answer those questions properly, we recently published a new practical guide:

How Long Should You Wear Q Magnets? When They Begin to Work, When to Remove Them, and When to Reapply

The reason we wrote it is because the answer depends heavily on context.

A fresh injury is not the same as chronic pain.

A small finger joint is not the same as the lower back.

A bruise is not the same as nerve-related facial pain.

And immediate relief is not always the same thing as complete recovery.

That is why the new guide looks at four different case studies, each showing a different response pattern.

Case Pattern 1: Acute Injury with Immediate Relief

The first case is one of the simplest and most instructive examples we have.

A young football player injured his finger at training. The finger swelled quickly, bruising appeared by the next morning, and a doctor confirmed there was no fracture, just a badly bruised finger.

Two small magnets were placed on either side of the affected finger joint.

This was a clean example of Field | Dose | Placement.

The injury was small.
The target was superficial.
The placement was precise.
The dose did not need to be large.

By Saturday morning, the bruising and pain had reportedly settled, and he was able to play football that weekend.

This type of case teaches an important principle:

When the injury is recent, localised, and close to the surface, the response may be relatively quick, especially when the magnets are placed accurately.

In cases like this, the wearing strategy is usually straightforward:

Wear while symptoms are active.
Remove once the area feels settled and function has returned.
Reapply if symptoms return.

Case Pattern 2: Chronic Pain with Immediate Relief

The second case is very different.

John had lived with low back pain for 27 years after a lifting and twisting injury. His history included disc bulges at L3/4 and L5/S1, multiple specialists, many therapies, and daily pain medication.

When Q Magnets were placed over the relevant lumbar levels, he noticed an unusual sensation almost immediately.

But the most meaningful change became obvious the next morning.

For the first time in many years, he was able to get out of bed without the same pain. Two weeks later, he reported that his daytime pain had reduced substantially.

This case is important because it challenges an assumption many people make.

People often assume that if pain has been present for decades, any response must be slow.

That is not always what we observe.

Some long-term pain cases may respond quickly, especially when the pain pattern, placement, magnet size, and tissue depth are well matched.

But there is an equally important caution.

Fast pain relief does not always mean the underlying condition has fully resolved.

If someone has had pain for 10, 20, or 30 years, their body may also have developed protective movement patterns, muscle guarding, altered confidence, and sensitised responses.

So in chronic pain cases, the question is not simply:

“Did the pain reduce?”

The better question is:

“What should we do with this window of reduced pain?”

Sometimes the answer is to keep wearing the magnets while the body stabilises. Later, once symptoms are consistently improved, it may be useful to test short periods without them.

Case Pattern 3: Chronic Pain with Delayed Relief and Intermittent Use

The third case involves Beth, who had trigeminal neuralgia affecting all three branches of the trigeminal nerve on the left side of her face.

This was not a simple injury.

Beth had undergone several brain surgeries and was still experiencing severe burning pain.

Using a Field | Dose | Placement approach, she positioned one magnet over the trigeminal ganglion region and another over the occipital area.

Her response was not instant.

After three days of continuous use, she reported a significant reduction in pain intensity. She then continued using the magnets at night for around eight hours while sleeping.

Over time, this became an intermittent routine that fit into her life.

This case helps answer another common question:

“What if I do not feel something immediately?”

In more complex pain states, especially nerve-related pain, the response may build over time. A few minutes may not be enough to judge the application.

This does not mean people should wear magnets indefinitely without thought.

It means the first trial may need to be long enough to give the body a chance to respond.

In Beth’s case, the pattern was:

Consistent early use.
A delayed but meaningful response.
Then intermittent use that suited her daily routine.

That is a very different pattern from the bruised finger.

And that is exactly the point.

Case Pattern 4: Chronic Pain with Strong Relief and Continued Use

The fourth case is Fran’s story.

Fran had lived with chronic atypical trigeminal neuralgia for seven years. After applying Q Magnets, she experienced three weeks completely free from pain.

For someone who had lived with symptoms for years, that kind of relief was understandably difficult to let go of.

And this is where Fran’s case becomes especially important.

When someone finally feels better after years of pain, it is natural to avoid changing anything. If the magnets are helping, why remove them?

But this is where we need to think carefully.

In Fran’s case, the magnets were eventually changed. Smaller magnets were used, and one larger magnet was positioned incorrectly. Her pain returned immediately, and the original comfort could not be recreated despite further attempts.

This story is not a warning that everyone must remove magnets after a fixed period.

It is a lesson in timing, placement, and observation.

When symptoms are active, magnets may provide useful support.

But when symptoms have been absent for several days, that may be the best time to gently test whether the body can remain comfortable without continuous exposure.

If symptoms return, reapply.

If symptoms remain settled, continue without them.

This is not dependency.

It is learning how the body responds.

Pain Relief Is a Window

One of the most important ideas in the new guide is this:

Pain relief creates a window. What you do in that window matters.

When symptoms reduce, it may be easier to sleep, walk, move, rehabilitate, relax, or simply live with less guarding.

But pain relief and full recovery are not always the same thing.

A person may feel better before the tissue has fully recovered. A nerve pathway may settle before the broader pain pattern has fully changed. A chronic condition may improve while still needing ongoing management.

That is why the question “How long should I wear Q Magnets?” cannot be answered with a single number.

The better question is:

What is the context?

Is the problem acute or chronic?
Is the pain local or referred?
Is the target superficial or deep?
Is the response immediate or delayed?
Do symptoms remain settled when the magnets are removed?
Does discomfort return when support is taken away?

These questions are much more useful than asking for a universal wearing time.

A Simple Practical Rule

For most people, the starting point is simple:

Wear Q Magnets while symptoms are active.

Once symptoms have clearly reduced or settled, remove them for a short period and observe what happens.

If symptoms return, reapply.

If symptoms remain settled, continue without them and use again only as needed.

For acute injuries, this may happen quickly.

For chronic pain, the process may take longer.

For complex nerve-related symptoms, some people may need consistent use before testing removal.

The important thing is not to treat symptom return as failure.

And it is not evidence of dependency.

It may simply mean the underlying pain sensitivity, injury, joint irritation, nerve pathway, or recovery issue still needs support.

Read the Full Guide

We have now published a more detailed resource that brings these ideas together and includes all four case studies in more detail.

You can read it here:

How Long Should You Wear Q Magnets? When They Begin to Work, When to Remove Them, and When to Reapply

It is designed for new users, existing customers, and practitioners who want a clearer framework for response timing, wearing duration, removal, and reapplication.

Because the real answer is not “wear them for X hours.”

The real answer is:

Understand the context.
Match Field | Dose | Placement.
Observe the response.
Remove when symptoms have settled.
Reapply if needed.
And seek professional advice for persistent, severe, worsening, or unexplained pain.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

The Weekly Reframe

Marcus Aurelius reminded us that what stands in the way can become the way.

Symptom return after removing Q Magnets does not need to be seen as failure.

It may simply be feedback.

Wear while symptoms are active.
Remove when symptoms have settled.
Reapply if discomfort returns.

The goal is not constant use.

The goal is learning what your body is ready for next.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

Q Magnets did not begin as a typical consumer health product.

They grew out of clinical practice, patient experience, early research, and the work of people who were willing to explore a very different approach to pain management.

A very important part of that story begins with Dr Robert Holcomb MD, PhD.

Dr Holcomb was a pioneer in the field of therapeutic static magnetic fields and the inventor of the original Magna Bloc technology. He worked with Dr Michael McLean at Vanderbilt University on some of the early research into quadrupolar magnet arrays and their possible role in pain therapy.

That early work mattered because it was not simply about “using magnets.”

It was about field design, field gradients, polarity patterns, biological effects, and the critical importance of placement.

In other words, it was about moving beyond the idea of a simple north-south magnet and asking a much more serious question:

Can a specifically designed static magnetic field be applied in a way that produces a useful therapeutic effect?

For Dianne and me, that question became the beginning of a very long journey.

Dianne’s role in the early clinical work

My wife, Dianne Hermans, was a physiotherapist. At the time, we had our clinic, Lifestyle Therapies, in Queensland.

Dianne first became interested in therapeutic magnets after suffering neck injuries from a car accident. She began using magnets herself and noticed the difference they made. But Dianne was not the type of person to stop at personal experience.

As a physiotherapist, she wanted to understand how the technology could be used properly with patients.

That led her to travel to Vanderbilt University a number of times between 1999 and 2001, where she learned from Dr Holcomb and became closely involved in the practical application of quadrupolar magnets.

Dr Holcomb once said of Dianne that, apart from himself, no one knew more about how to apply quadrupolar magnets as a therapy for chronic and complex pain, which said a great deal about Dianne’s clinical skills.

She was not just using magnets in a general way. She was learning how to think about placement, pain patterns, tissue depth, polarity, field exposure, and patient response.

That clinical experience became central to the development of Q Magnets.

The clinic was our proving ground

At Lifestyle Therapies, Dianne used quadrupolar magnets as an adjunct to normal physiotherapy treatment.

The magnets were not presented as a replacement for diagnosis, physiotherapy, medical care, or good clinical judgement. They were used as an additional tool within a clinical setting.

Patients were assessed. The magnets were placed carefully. Responses were observed. Placement methods were refined.

Over time, we learned that one of the greatest advantages of the technology was that patients could continue using the magnets between visits.

That meant the support did not have to stop when the appointment ended.

This idea has stayed with me ever since:

The best clinical tools should not remain locked inside treatment rooms.

If something is safe, practical, reusable, and can be taught properly, then patients should be able to use it at home as part of their own self-care.

That principle is still at the heart of Q Magnets today.

From four discs to more complex magnetic field designs

One of the things worth understanding about the early Magna Bloc work is that it was still based on combining four separate bipolar disc magnets into a quadrupolar array.

That was a significant step forward compared with simple bipolar magnets, but it also had a limitation.

When four separate discs are combined, the practical configuration is essentially quadrupolar.

See my video explanation here: Magna Bloc Q magnets Comparison - Why Q magnets are superior

One of the important developments we made later was learning how to create quadrupolar and hexapolar magnets from a single magnet body. From there, we went on to develop octapolar designs and later concentric alternating polarity rings.

That opened up a much greater level of complexity and versatility in the applied magnetic fields.

This became a major part of how Q Magnets evolved beyond the early designs.

We were no longer thinking only in terms of whether a magnet was north or south, or whether four separate magnets could be arranged in a square.

We were thinking in terms of field geometry.

How many poles?
What pattern?
What size?
What strength?
What depth?
What body region?
What pain presentation?
What placement strategy?

That is where our thinking around Field | Dose | Placement became so important.

The field matters because the shape and polarity of the magnetic field influence how it is applied to the body.

The dose matters because different sizes and strengths may be more appropriate for different tissues, body regions, and pain presentations.

The placement matters because even a well-designed magnet still has to be applied in the right location to have the best chance of helping.

This is why Q Magnets have always placed so much emphasis on placement guides, practitioner education, and practical instructions.

The magnet itself is only one part of the system.

How it is used matters just as much.

A practical system for clinics

Another important development came directly from clinical practice.

When magnets are used in a clinic, the practitioner often wants the patient to continue wearing them between visits. That can be very helpful, but it also creates a practical problem.

How do you keep track of reusable clinical tools once they leave the clinic?

In our own practice, we developed a simple method of loaning magnets to patients, recording what was issued, setting expectations, and following up.

This helped patients continue using the magnets between appointments, while also helping the clinic keep track of the devices.

That system is now something many clinics can benefit from today.

We have made it available as the Q Magnet Loan Agreement & Follow-Up System, including loan forms, a patient instruction sheet, and a staff training guide.

The goal is simple:

Help patients receive the benefit of continued magnet use between visits, while maintaining accountability for reusable clinical tools.

It is a small example, but I think it says a lot about the way Q Magnets developed.

We did not just ask, “Can we make a magnet?”

We asked:

Can this be used properly in a clinic?
Can patients understand what to do?
Can practitioners follow up?
Can the same tool be used in a way that is practical, accountable, and safe?

That is the sort of thinking that came from Dianne’s physiotherapy background and from years of real patient care.

A local clinic story that became much larger

Years ago, the Bayside Bulletin in Redlands, Queensland, published a story about our early work with Q Magnets.

Looking back, the headline was written in the bold style of local newspaper reporting. Today, we would be more careful with wording, because pain is complex and no product works the same way for everyone.

But the story behind that article is still very meaningful to me.

It captured a real period in our history: a large suburban clinic, real patients, Dianne’s physiotherapy work, and a technology that was beginning to attract attention because people were reporting significant changes.

Those early clinic experiences shaped everything that came later.

They shaped the way we explained the product.

They shaped the way we thought about placement.

They shaped the way we developed different magnet models.

They shaped the belief that Q Magnets should be simple enough for home use, but serious enough to be used by health professionals.

Some memorable people along the way

Over the years, Q Magnets have brought us into contact with many interesting people.

Some were everyday patients looking for help with persistent pain. Some were practitioners looking for another tool to support their clinical work. And some were well-known athletes, including Australian cricketer Shane Watson and AFL champion Simon Black.

Those moments were memorable, of course.

But the real story has never been about celebrity.

The real story is that the same principles apply whether the person is an elite athlete, a weekend golfer, a tradesperson, a parent, or someone simply trying to get through the day with less pain.

The question is always:

Where is the pain coming from?

Where should the magnet be placed?

What field and dose are appropriate?

Can the person use it consistently and safely?

What response do they notice?

That is the practical clinical thinking that Dianne brought to the work, and it is still the thinking behind Q Magnets today.

Giving credit where it is due

I also want to give proper credit to Dr Robert Holcomb.

Without his pioneering work, and without the early research at Vanderbilt, Q Magnets would not have the foundation that it does.

Dr Holcomb helped move the discussion away from generic “magnet therapy” and toward something more specific: designed magnetic fields, quadrupolar arrays, measurable gradients, biological plausibility, and the need for controlled research.

That foundation influenced Dianne’s work and then our own development of Q Magnets.

Our contribution has been to take that early quadrupolar concept and build it into a more practical, versatile system for clinics and home users.

That meant improving the physical design, developing different polarities and sizes, and creating a broader range of options so that field, dose, and placement could be matched more effectively to different pain presentations.

Why some of our placement videos are old

If you have watched some of our Q Magnet placement videos, you may have noticed that a number of them were recorded quite some time ago, around 2010.

The information is still current.

The placement principles have not changed, and many of those videos continue to help people use Q Magnets properly.

But the videos do need an upgrade.

The reason they have not been updated sooner is personal. Dianne has not been well enough to redo them for many years.

That has been one of the difficult realities behind the scenes.

Dianne’s illness has made parts of this story harder to tell, and it has made some of the educational work harder to refresh in the way I would have liked.

But we are now getting closer to a new stage.

In the coming months, we hope to create updated video illustrations using the power of AI medical illustration. This should allow us to explain placements more clearly, show anatomy more effectively, and improve the learning experience for both home users and practitioners.

In a way, that is very consistent with the whole Q Magnets story.

The goal has always been to take useful clinical knowledge and make it easier for people to apply properly.

Dianne’s contribution remains central

Dianne’s illness has made this story much harder to tell in recent years.

But it has not made her contribution any less important.

Dianne’s work as a physiotherapist helped shape the way Q Magnets were applied, tested, refined, and explained. She brought a clinician’s eye to the project. She cared about patient outcomes. She understood that a device is only useful if people can use it properly.

That is why Q Magnets are not just a product range.

They are a placement-based system that grew out of clinical practice.

The new About Us page tells more of that story, but I wanted to write this MagnaBlog because there is a deeper history behind the brand that deserves to be remembered.

Q Magnets began with pioneering research, clinical curiosity, and practical physiotherapy experience.

They were shaped by Dr Holcomb’s early work, Dianne’s clinical skill, our years at Lifestyle Therapies, and the many patients and practitioners who helped us learn what worked in the real world.

That history still guides what we do today.

Clinic-born. Research-informed. Practitioner-guided. Designed for home use.

That is the story behind Q Magnets.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

The Weekly Reframe

Progress isn’t measured by pain-free days alone. Sometimes growth is choosing to keep showing up, adapting, and learning what your body needs. Small adjustments can create meaningful change over time. What’s one challenge you could view as feedback instead of failure?

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

And why early support matters more than waiting it out

Most people notice it quietly.

A rolled ankle that once settled in a few days now lingers for weeks.
A sore shoulder after gardening takes longer to calm down.
A back strain that used to feel like a nuisance becomes something you have to plan your week around.

It is easy to explain this as simply “getting older.”

But that is only part of the story.

A better way to think about it is this:

As we age, recovery is still possible. It just becomes less automatic.

And that makes early support after an injury much more important.

A quick note before we get too far:

There’s also a small offer at the end of this week’s MagnaBlog for anyone thinking about putting together a Q Magnets kit for themselves, a parent, or someone they care about. It ties directly into today’s theme: early support is much easier when the right tools are already close at hand.

Recovery Is Not Just Repair

When we think about injury, we often imagine the body doing one job: repairing damaged tissue.

But recovery is more coordinated than that.

Inflammation has to arrive, do its job, and then settle. Muscles, tendons, joints, and connective tissue need the right conditions to adapt. The nervous system has to protect the area without becoming overprotective. Movement needs to return gradually without aggravating the injury.

In younger bodies, these systems often move through the process more smoothly.

With age, the same process can become slower and less forgiving.

Inflammation may hang around longer.
Tendons and muscles may take longer to settle.
The nervous system may become more sensitive when pain signals continue for too long.

This is why “just give it time” can sometimes become a problem.

Time helps many injuries.

But too much unhelpful time can allow guarding, stiffness, fear of movement, and nervous system sensitivity to become part of the pattern.

The Pattern Practitioners Often See

Practitioners hear this story often:

“I thought it would settle by itself.”

At first, that makes sense.

A person tweaks a knee, strains a lower back, irritates a shoulder, or flares up an old sciatic pattern. They rest for a few days and expect things to improve.

But then they start moving differently.

They avoid certain positions.
They stop loading the area normally.
They sleep poorly.
They tense up.
They become cautious.

By the time they seek help, the original irritation may no longer be the only issue.

Now the body has learned a protective pattern.

This is why early treatment becomes more important as we age. Not because every minor injury is serious, but because older recovery systems may have less margin for delay.

Jan Johnson’s Experience: Nipping Pain in the Bud

Jan Johnson’s Q Magnets story fits this idea beautifully.

Jan had already used magnets for years and felt she had seen “a fair amount of success” with pain and inflammation reduction. But she found Q Magnets performed better than the magnets she had previously used.

What stood out in Jan’s testimony was not just that she used magnets.

It was how she used them.

She noticed that once she discovered the correct position for the injury or site of inflammation, the response was “really quick and comprehensive.”

That detail matters.

Placement is not a minor technicality. In magnetic therapy, it can change the experience entirely.

Jan also observed that more chronic pain patterns needed a different approach. For sciatica, she found she needed to leave the magnets on for about a week. After that, if the pain returned, she noticed it seemed to take only a day or so to resolve when she applied them early.

Then, in an email from April 2022, Jan made the early intervention point even clearer.

She wrote that she and her husband were doing well with their “bigger collection of Q Magnets” and used them regularly, adding that it was “a great relief to nip those pains in the bud before they flare and really get in the way of mobility.”

That phrase captures the whole lesson.

Early support is not about panic.

It is about preventing a small problem from becoming a bigger pattern.

You can read Jan’s full story here:
https://qmagnets.com/how-jans-uses-magnetic-therapy-for-ongoing-pain-relief-and-recovery-support/

Field, Dose, Placement — In Real Life

Jan’s experience is also a practical example of Field | Dose | Placement.

The field matters because not all magnetic fields are the same. Q Magnets use engineered multipolar designs that create localized static magnetic field gradients.

The dose matters because exposure time, consistency, magnet size, and tissue depth all influence the recovery environment.

Placement matters because the magnet must be positioned in relation to the relevant tissue, joint, nerve pathway, or painful area.

Jan noticed all three in practice.

She found that correct positioning changed the response. She found that chronic pain required longer exposure. She found that early use helped her act before pain became more disruptive.

That is very different from treating magnetic therapy as a one-size-fits-all approach.

It is more precise.

And it is more practical.

Why Early Support Matters More With Age

As recovery slows, the nervous system has more time to rehearse pain.

This does not mean pain is imaginary. It means the body can become better at protecting an area, even after the original irritation has started to settle.

A small movement may feel larger than it should.
A normal stretch may feel threatening.
A mild flare-up may create more guarding than expected.

This is one reason early treatment should not only focus on tissue repair.

It should also support comfort, movement confidence, and nervous system regulation.

Q Magnets are not a replacement for diagnosis, rehabilitation, or appropriate medical care. But when used thoughtfully, they can create a localized wearable recovery environment that may help support comfort while the body does its work.

For older adults, that timing can matter.

Not because the body cannot recover.

But because recovery often needs better conditions.

Keep Them Close

Early support only helps if the tool is available when you need it.

This is why it makes sense to keep a set of Q Magnets close at hand.

Keep them in your gym bag.
Pack them when you travel.
Take them when you go hiking, cycling, golfing, running, or exercising.
Have them nearby when gardening, lifting, or doing the activities most likely to stir up an old injury.

Many people wait until pain has fully flared before they act.

Jan’s approach points to a better pattern: apply support early, place it carefully, and give the body consistent help before pain starts interfering with mobility.

Of course, early support does not mean ignoring proper assessment.

If there is severe pain, major swelling, deformity, numbness, loss of strength, inability to bear weight, or symptoms that do not make sense, seek medical advice.

But for everyday strains, flare-ups, and minor injuries, the first few days matter.

They are a window to reduce irritation, maintain gentle movement, avoid unnecessary guarding, and support the nervous system before pain becomes more entrenched.

Practical Takeaway

When you experience a minor injury or flare-up, ask:

Is this settling, or becoming more protective?
Am I moving normally, or compensating?
Is sleep being affected?
Is the area becoming more sensitive rather than less?
Have I placed support directly over the most relevant area?
Do I have my Q Magnets nearby, or did I leave them at home?

Recovery after 50 is not about accepting slow healing as inevitable.

It is about creating a better recovery environment earlier.

And sometimes, that starts before the pain has a chance to flare.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,
James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

The Weekly Reframe

“Early support is easier than chasing pain later. Keep your Q Magnets close when you travel, exercise, hike, garden, or do anything that may stir up an old injury. As Jan put it, the goal is to nip those pains in the bud before they flare and get in the way of mobility.”

A Thought for Someone You Care About

Do you have a parent, partner, or loved one who is getting on a bit, whether they like to admit it or not?

Maybe they still garden, walk, golf, travel, hike, or insist on doing “just one more thing” around the house. And maybe you have noticed that the little aches, strains, and flare-ups are taking longer to settle than they used to.

This is where having Q Magnets close at hand can be a practical investment in their comfort, mobility, and independence.

Not just for when pain has already become a problem.

But for those early moments when something starts to niggle, tighten, or flare before it gets in the way of moving well.

Use coupon code EARLY to receive 10% off and help someone you care about build their own recovery support kit.

Because early support is much easier than chasing pain later.

Featured Article

Why Pain Becomes Chronic And Why Early Treatment Matters

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Article

There’s a particular kind of exhaustion that doesn’t always show on the surface.

The kind that builds slowly.

A body that never fully relaxes. Morning stiffness that arrives before the coffee does. Interrupted sleep. The quiet calculations people make every day around pain, recovery, energy, movement, and rest.

For many people, wellness isn’t about chasing perfection. It’s about getting through the day more comfortably than the day before, even as we age!

Sleeping more deeply. Waking up with less tension. Feeling calmer in the body. Having enough relief to enjoy ordinary life again.

That emotional thread appears again and again throughout the customer stories surrounding the Q Magnet Blanket.

Not dramatic promises. Not polished marketing language.

Just people describing what changed.

And often, the changes they describe are surprisingly human.

A better night’s sleep. A calmer nervous system. Less discomfort in the morning. More mobility. Better recovery. A sense of ease they hadn’t felt in years.

Reading through the testimonials feels less like reading advertisements and more like listening to conversations people have after finally finding something that helped them rest.

A Wellness Product People Actually Live With

The Q Magnet Blanket is not something most people describe as a quick fix.

Instead, customers often talk about it as part of their environment. A blanket they sleep with every night. An underlay that stays on the bed or on top of their favourite chair. Something they return to during recovery, stress, discomfort, or periods of poor sleep.

For many users, the appeal is surprisingly simple:

comfort, consistency, ease of use, and the feeling of support.

One of the clearest endorsements comes from Dr. Robyn Cosford, who explains why she recommends the Q Blanket to patients:

“I recommend the Q Blanket to my patients because it provides general support for the central nervous system. The distribution of the Q magnetic field can provide greater tolerance to unwelcome electromagnetic field exposure and to life’s external stressors.”

That speaks to - Support. Tolerance. Stress. The nervous system.

Those same themes continue to appear throughout many of the customer experiences.

People repeatedly describe feeling calmer, sleeping more comfortably, waking with less discomfort, and recovering more effectively.

I should add that we were initially reluctant to manufacture the Q Blanket at all. Under the Field | Dose | Placement framework, we have always been more focused on targeted placement over specific areas of the body. But Dr Robyn Cosford, an integrative medicine doctor, encouraged me to make them after describing how valuable similar types of magnetic blankets had been in her own clinical experience. That perspective helped me see the blanket differently, not as a replacement for targeted Q Magnet placement, but as a broader comfort and recovery support tool that people could easily live with every day.

“I Was Highly Sceptical”

One of the most compelling stories comes from Frank Campagna from Melbourne.

What makes Frank’s experience resonate is not enthusiasm. It’s hesitation.

Like many people, he wasn’t immediately convinced.

He writes:

“A friend of mine loaned me a Q magnetic blanket that I accepted (reluctantly) out of courtesy but was highly sceptical.”

Frank had spent years waking with severe foot pain.

“For the past 5 years, I cannot recall a single day when the first steps taken in the morning haven’t registered 9/10 pain levels.”

Eventually, with nothing to lose, he decided to sleep on the blanket.

“Having nothing to lose, I placed the Q magnet blanket on the base of the bed and slept on it so that the magnets covered from my lower back to my feet.”

The next morning surprised him.

“On waking the very next morning, I took my first steps and could not believe that my pain was now 1/10. I can’t even remember the last time my feet had felt that good in the morning.”

What stands out is not just the reduction in discomfort.

It’s the emotional tone. The disbelief. The relief. The memory of what it feels like to wake up without immediately bracing for pain.

Frank later added:

“It’s now been over one week and the morning pain in my foot has remained at around 1/10.”

There’s something deeply relatable about that kind of story.

Not because it sounds miraculous. But because it sounds honest.

The Sleep Conversation Keeps Appearing

Across dozens of testimonials, one theme continues to surface naturally:

sleep.

Not luxury sleep. Not performance sleep.

Just better sleep.

The kind that changes how people feel the next morning.

Joseph Glandon shared:

“I also bought the blankets with Q magnets sewn in, I replaced my regular blanket, feel very rested. Extremely comfortable weight very snuggly.”

That word “snuggly” probably says more than any technical explanation could.

People are not only talking about recovery. They are talking about comfort. Warmth. Relaxation. Feeling settled.

Toni Curran wrote:

“I love my Q Magnets. I purchased 2 large blanket/underlays. All my little morning niggling pains have disappeared. Thank you Q Magnets.”

Again, the language is simple. Morning pains. Comfort. Daily life.

Steve Musco described the impact the blanket had on his wife’s sleep:

“Using the magnets in the blanket, my wife has experienced a significant decrease in pain at night allowing for a more restful , comfortable night of sleep.”

And another customer, Mal Craig, shared:

“I have just purchased the blanket for my wife who is in chronic pain . 4 days and she is sleeping better so far...”

There’s a quiet consistency to these experiences.

People are not necessarily talking about dramatic transformation. They are talking about what happens when the body finally begins to relax.

And for many people dealing with ongoing discomfort, stress, inflammation, or restless nights, sleep itself becomes the turning point.

Recovery, Comfort & Everyday Function

One of the most striking things throughout the testimonials is how often customers describe returning to ordinary activities they had started avoiding.

Walking. Gardening. Riding a bike. Going upstairs. Sleeping through the night. Standing for long periods.

Small things. Except they are not small at all.

Connie, a 68-year-old from Florida, described years of discomfort affecting multiple areas of her body.

Before trying Q Magnets, she rated her pain at 8 out of 10.

What stood out most to her was how quickly she noticed relief:

“Upon first using Q magnets, she found almost immediate relief, within just 15 minutes.”

But perhaps more important was what happened over time.

“Connie typically uses the magnets twice a week, leaving them on for about 12 hours, even while sleeping. SLEEP WITHOUT PAIN.”

That phrase carries emotional weight.

Not simply pain reduction. Sleep without pain.

She also described being able to continue enjoying activities like walking, biking, and gardening.

Again, quality of life becomes the real story.

Jay, who had struggled with chronic neck pain and lower back pain for years, shared a similar experience:

“Q magnets have helped Jay sleep better and bike longer without the need for medication.”

There’s a groundedness to that sentence.

Not perfection. Not cure language.

Just better sleep. Longer bike rides. More freedom.

The Blanket as Part of Daily Life

Another pattern appears throughout many long-term customer experiences:

people integrate the Q Blanket into their routines naturally.

It becomes part of the couch. The bed. The recovery chair. The evening routine.

Jenny Katz-Brandoli described her husband’s experience living with fibromyalgia, PTSD, chronic pain, fatigue, and migraines.

She explained:

“We also bought a magnet blanket, which lives permanently on the couch for him to sit and lie on.”

That detail feels important.

The blanket isn’t being described as a special event. It becomes part of the environment. A source of comfort woven into daily life.

The daughter of Johanna Keysers shared the experience of her 93-year-old mother:

“She has been sleeping with a small Q Blanket for years and I am sure it helps with the circulation and any pain issues.”

That idea of ongoing support appears frequently.

Not intensity. Consistency.

And for many people managing chronic discomfort or nervous system stress, consistency matters more than anything.

A Different Kind of Wellness Story

Modern wellness culture often swings between extremes.

Either impossible promises. Or complete cynicism.

What feels refreshing about many Q Magnet Blanket testimonials is how measured they are.

People are not trying to sound convincing. They are simply describing what they experienced.

Better mornings. Less tension. Improved sleep. Reduced discomfort. Calmer bodies. More manageable days.

Some customers describe recovery after injuries. Others describe chronic pain. Others talk about stress, inflammation, mobility, or restless sleep.

But emotionally, many of the stories point toward the same thing:

people wanting to feel more comfortable in their own body again.

And perhaps that’s why the testimonials resonate.

Because they don’t sound polished. They sound lived in.

The Emotional Side of Better Sleep

Sleep changes everything.

People who sleep better often describe waking differently. Thinking differently. Moving differently.

There’s more patience. More resilience. Less fear around pain.

That emotional shift quietly appears throughout many of the Q Blanket experiences.

The blanket is often described not only as supportive physically, but comforting emotionally.

Soft. Warm. Calming. Grounding.

For some people, simply feeling relaxed enough to fall asleep comfortably becomes meaningful.

And in a world where many people live in a near-constant state of stress, tension, overstimulation, and physical discomfort, products associated with calmness and recovery naturally become deeply personal.

Why These Stories Matter

No wellness product works identically for everyone. And the people sharing these stories understand that.

What makes the Q Magnet Blanket testimonials compelling is not certainty. It’s consistency.

Across many different ages, lifestyles, and health experiences, people continue describing similar themes:

better sleep, calmer mornings, less discomfort, improved recovery, more mobility, more comfort, and a better overall quality of life.

That doesn’t read like hype. It reads like lived experience.

And increasingly, lived experience matters.

Because when someone has spent years feeling exhausted, uncomfortable, tense, or unable to fully rest, even modest improvements can feel significant.

A night of uninterrupted sleep. A walk without stiffness. A calmer morning. A body that feels less reactive.

These things matter.

Sometimes enormously.

The Human Side of Wellness

At its core, the popularity of the Q Magnet Blanket may come down to something very simple.

People are searching for ways to feel better in everyday life.

Not perfect. Just better.

To sleep more deeply. To wake with less discomfort. To recover more comfortably. To feel calmer. To rely less on constant pain management strategies. To feel more at ease in their body.

And while every experience is different, the stories surrounding the Q Magnet Blanket continue pointing toward one consistent idea:

for many people, it has become a meaningful source of comfort, support, recovery, and rest.

Not because of exaggerated promises.

But because of how people say it makes them feel.

Since we only hear back from a small percentage of customers. If you have a Q Blanket story to share, please do so. Reply to this email or from the Contact Us page. We’d delighted to hear about your experiences.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team.

Weekly Reframe

Relief is not always dramatic. Sometimes it begins when the body finally feels safe enough to rest.

Featured Articles

Magnetic Mattress Pads helping provide support for those suffering pain

See Article

Q Magnet Blankets

See Article

Q Magnet Blanket Testimonies

Read Article

Gauss is one of those topics we often get asked about, and like many things involving magnetic fields, it can quickly become more complicated than most people want.

So here is the simple version.

Gauss is a measurement of magnetic field strength. More precisely, it is what an instrument called a Gaussmeter measures at one specific point, in one specific direction.

That means Gauss is not simply “the strength of the magnet” as one universal number.

This matters because a simple bipolar magnet and a multipolar medical magnet behave very differently when measured.

A typical bipolar magnet has one North side and one South side. If you take readings across the same face of the magnet, the measurements are usually fairly similar because the field is relatively uniform across that surface.

A quadrapolar Q Magnet is different. It has alternating North and South poles on the same treatment face. Because of this, the Gauss reading can change dramatically depending on exactly where the probe is placed and which direction it is measuring.

You might get a strong positive reading over one pole, a strong negative reading over another pole, and even a near-zero reading at the boundary between poles.

But that zero reading does not mean there is no magnetic field there.

It may simply mean the instrument is measuring one axis of the field where the vertical components cancel. When measured across the surface, that same boundary can show a strong lateral field. This boundary region is important because it is where the field changes direction rapidly.

That rapid change is called a magnetic field gradient.

And this is one of the most important differences between ordinary bipolar magnets and precision multipolar medical magnets.

The question is not just:

“How many Gauss is it?”

A better question is:

“Where is the Gauss being measured, and what kind of field gradient does the magnet create?”

For Q Magnets, the variation in Gauss readings is not a flaw. It is part of the multipolar field design. The alternating pole structure creates localized gradients, and these gradients are central to why field geometry matters.

This is also why simply comparing magnets by their highest Gauss number can be misleading. A high surface Gauss reading does not tell you how the field behaves across the magnet, how quickly it falls with distance, or whether it creates the kind of localized gradient associated with multipolar medical magnet design.

So the takeaway is simple:

Gauss matters, but it is only part of the story.

When comparing magnets, especially therapeutic magnets, the more useful factors are:

• how the Gauss was measured

• whether the magnet is bipolar or multipolar

• how the field changes across the surface

• whether the magnet creates useful field gradients

• how the magnet is positioned over the target tissue

For anyone who wants the deeper explanation, including Gauss vs Tesla, N45 magnet ratings, Z-axis and XY-axis measurements, field gradients, the Maximally Effective Region, and why “total Gauss” marketing can be misleading, we have written a full guide here:

Read Full Article

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans

and the Q Magnets Team

Weekly Reframe

On fields, particles, and invisible forces:
“A complete field theory knows only fields and not the concepts of particle and motion.”
— Albert Einstein

Invisible does not mean inactive.
Einstein’s field-based view of physics reminds us that particles are not the whole story. Fields have structure, direction, and influence even when we cannot see them directly.

That is exactly why Gauss alone can be misleading. With Q Magnets, the important question is not just “how strong is the magnet?” but “how is the field shaped?”

Featured Article

Why magnet design matters? Learning from Cow Magnets

Read Full Article

Magnetic Field Gradients

Read Full Article

Magnetic Therapy

Read Full Article

I’ve been in the United States attending conferences, meeting practitioners, and speaking with researchers about Q Magnets. Including Professor Dr Pradip Ghosh and final-year physiotherapy students at Maryville University in Saint Louis, MO.

Those conversations were encouraging, but they also brought me back to a bigger question I’ve been thinking about for years:

Why do ordinary ideas get adopted quickly, while others struggle to be taken seriously, even when they may have genuine value?

That question matters for Q Magnets.

It matters for healthcare.

And, as history shows, it matters far beyond medicine.

A system doesn’t always choose what works best

One of the things I’ve noticed from my many trips to the United States is how influence operates within their political system.

I don’t say that as a partisan comment. It is about structure.

The United States has a highly developed lobbying system where large industries, wealthy donors, and powerful interest groups often have direct access to the people writing legislation. In 2024, federal lobbying spending in the US reached a record US$4.4 billion, according to OpenSecrets.

That doesn’t mean every decision is corrupt.

But it does mean access is not evenly distributed.

If an industry has money, lobbyists, political relationships, and a strong commercial interest in maintaining the status quo, it has a much greater chance of shaping policy than a smaller idea, a less profitable solution, or an intervention that doesn’t fit neatly into the existing system.

In healthcare, this becomes especially important.

Some interventions don’t struggle because they are useless.

They struggle because they do not have the lobbying power behind them.

Or because they might disrupt vested interests that already have influence.

Or because they are difficult to patent, package, scale, and sell in the way the system prefers.

Trams are a useful example

A simple way to see this is through transport.

Most major American cities once had tram or trolley systems. Many were removed. Roads expanded. Cars became dominant.

This video gives a useful overview of the American trolley story:

US — The Real Reason America Killed Its Trolley Systems

My home city of Melbourne took a different path.

Melbourne kept its trams.

This video explains that story:

Australia — Why did Melbourne keep its trams?

That outcome wasn’t inevitable. It happened because individuals resisted the pressure to follow what other cities were doing.

One of those people was Major General Sir Robert Risson, chairman of the Melbourne and Metropolitan Tramways Board from 1949 to 1970. He is widely recognised as a major reason Melbourne retained its tram network at a time when trams were falling out of favour.

The point is not that trams are perfect.

The point is that what survives is not always what is objectively best.

Often, it is what powerful interests lobby to remove, or what someone courageous decides to protect.

Not everyone gives in to the system

Clair Patterson is an important example.

Patterson was the American geochemistry who helped determine the age of the Earth. But in doing so, he also uncovered widespread environmental lead contamination.

His work eventually challenged the use of lead in petrol, paint, food containers, and other industrial products.

That was not a small fight.

He was pushing against powerful industrial interests. Caltech notes that Patterson’s work put him at odds with major industry lobbies and that he paid a professional price for it.

That matters.

Because Patterson is a reminder that systems can be wrong for a long time.

They can protect harmful practices.

They can dismiss inconvenient evidence.

They can make life difficult for the people pointing out the problem.

But occasionally, someone keeps pushing anyway.

Major General Sir Robert Risson did that for Melbourne’s trams.

Clair Patterson did that for environmental lead.

Different countries. Different issues.

Same pattern.

Society benefits when individuals are willing to resist powerful interests, even when it costs them personally.

So what does this have to do with magnets?

This is where my recent trip to the United States ties back to Q Magnets.

At Maryville University, I spoke with Professor Dr Pradip Ghosh and final-year physiotherapy students who had completed a small knee osteoarthritis study using quadrapolar Q Magnets.

Another group was preparing to begin a lower back pain study.

We had a very useful discussions about research design, patient compliance, placement, dosage, outcomes, placebo effects, and what can realistically be measured.

And that is exactly where this subject belongs.

Not in hype.

Not in miracle claims.

But in careful observation.

The knee pain study

The first group looked at knee osteoarthritis.

They used an A–B–A design:

• baseline testing
• three weeks using the magnets
• three weeks without the magnets
• then three weeks using them again

Participants wore the magnets for two hours a day, five days a week. They were placed on the medial and lateral sides of the tibiofemoral joint line. Following the Q Magnets protocol for knee pain.

The students measured outcomes using gait data, the visual analogue scale for pain, and the KOOS knee osteoarthritis outcome score.

The most interesting finding was not simply “pain went down.”

Pain scores were mixed.

But function changed.

Step length improved during the magnet phases, and in several participants it declined when the magnets were removed. Gait velocity and KOOS scores also improved when compared with baseline.

One of the students made a point that I think is worth remembering:

“We didn’t have a single patient who said this was not beneficial for me… the subjective reports of improvement were there across the board.”

That is not definitive proof.

But it is a signal.

And in healthcare, signals are often where better questions begin.

The lower back pain study

The second group was preparing a study on chronic lower back pain.

This discussion was especially useful because it showed how difficult good research can be.

Where should the magnets be placed?

Should placement be standardised across every participant?

Or should it be based on the individual’s symptoms, anatomy, and pain presentation?

If someone’s issue is at L5–S1 but the study protocol places the magnet at L4–5, then you may have the right field and the right duration, but the wrong placement.

That matters.

Because with Q Magnets, the question is rarely as simple as:

“Do magnets work?”

A better question is:

“Under what conditions do they influence biology?”

That means considering:

• Field — strength, gradient, and configuration
• Dose — duration and consistency
• Placement — anatomical relevance
• Context — condition, timing, and tissue state

This framework sits at the heart of MagnaBlog’s approach: avoid binary thinking and focus instead on when, where, and why static magnetic fields may influence outcomes.

Why many therapies are misunderstood

This is where the system problem returns.

Modern healthcare often favours interventions that are easy to standardise, patent, fund, and scale.

That does not automatically make those interventions bad.

But it does mean other approaches may struggle to gain attention, especially if they require careful application, clinician judgement, or individualised placement.

Q Magnets are not a drug.

They are not a procedure.

They are not a one-size-fits-all intervention.

They depend on use.

They depend on placement.

They depend on the right magnetic field for the right tissue and condition.

That makes them harder to study, but not less worthy of study.

In fact, it makes the research more important.

The wrong conclusion is the easiest one

When people hear “magnets,” many already have an opinion.

Some think of fridge magnets.

Some think of weak flexible magnetic products that were poorly designed.

Some think of pseudoscience.

That history has muddied the water.

But poor products and poor explanations do not mean the entire field should be dismissed.

A badly designed tram system does not prove public transport is useless.

A weak magnetic product used in the wrong place does not prove static magnetic fields have no biological relevance.

The design matters.

The placement matters.

The dose matters.

The context matters.

What I took from the United States

My recent trip reminded me of two things at once.

First, large systems often protect what already has influence.

That is true in politics.

It is true in transport.

And it is true in healthcare.

Second, progress often starts with individuals who are willing to ask better questions before the system is ready to accept them.

Researchers.

Practitioners.

Students.

Patients.

People who notice something, test it, refine it, and keep going.

That is how many useful ideas begin.

Not as accepted wisdom.

But as careful observation.

The practical takeaway

When looking at any intervention, including Q Magnets, the better question is not:

“Does it work?”

The better questions are:

• What type of field is being used?
• Where is it placed?
• How long is it worn?
• Is it being used consistently?
• What condition is being treated?
• What outcome is being measured?

That is where useful understanding begins.

Final thought

History shows that society does not always adopt the best ideas first.

Sometimes it adopts what is profitable.

Sometimes it adopts what is politically convenient.

Sometimes it adopts what powerful interests are willing to support.

But not always.

Sometimes, courageous people resist.

Clair Patterson pushed back against the lead industry.

Major General Sir Robert Risson helped preserve Melbourne’s trams.

And today, in a much smaller but still meaningful way, practitioners and researchers are asking better questions about Q Magnets.

That is how progress often begins.

Not with hype.

Not with certainty.

But with careful observation, practical testing, and the willingness to keep asking:

Under what conditions does this help?

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans
and the Q Magnets Team

The Weekly Reframe

A short thought to carry into the week.
“You don’t stop exercising because you get old; you get old because you stop exercising.” — Dr Ross Walker, Cardiologist

Featured Article

How Rockefeller’s Flexner Report Suppressed Electric & Magnetic therapy

Read Article

The irrational and remarkable bias against the therapeutic use of static magnets

Read Article

Field. Dose. Placement. The science behind effective magnetic field therapy.

Read Article

Dianne Hermans, a physiotherapist with a keen interest in treating complex and chronic pain understood the power of Quadrapolar magnets and how to use them better than anyone, except maybe the neurologist who pioneered much of the early research.

So Dianne was in demand in Australia to conduct numerous in-services and training sessions for health professionals and rehabilitation groups.

One such group, was Chamelian Consultants, in Launceston Tasmania.

There something remarkable unfolded.

They documented what happened next.

They logged cases.

They estimated insurer savings.

And in March 2001, their Managing Director, Glenn Bromfield, summarised the results.

The original case summary can be viewed here:
Chameleon Consultants Rehabilitation Case Series (March 2001)

Read the full article here: Chameleon’s experience with : Neuromagnetic Therapy

This was 26 years ago.

Before Q Magnets existed as a brand.
Before “biohacking.”
Before social media testimonials.

Just rehabilitation clinicians applying a new tool and observing outcomes.

Case 1: Bill - Chronic Degenerative Back Pain

Bill was in his 60s. A former shearer. Immobilised by lower back pain for two years following degenerative changes and disc bulging.

He had physiotherapy. Stretching. Exercise programs. Some functional gains, but no meaningful return to work. Sleep was disrupted. Driving was difficult.

After Quadrapolar placement training, magnets were applied over his lower back.

The reported effect was dramatic.

Within 20 minutes, his pain began to fade

Over the following months:

• He returned to supervisory duties.

• He drove longer distances.

• He ceased pain and anti-inflammatory medication.

• His quality of life improved significantly.

Estimated savings:

• Approximately $300 per week in reduced wage compensation.

• Approximately $40 per week in medication.

• Roughly $17,000 annually

The cost of the devices was described as insignificant compared to the savings.

Case 2: Emma - Severe Period Pain

Emma, mid-20s, was experiencing severe menstrual pain. Endometriosis was suspected. Exploratory surgery was being considered.

After training, the therapist trialled different magnet placements during a symptomatic episode.

The effect was not immediate. Placement was refined.

Eventually, a configuration was found that allowed her to largely control symptoms when they occurred

Surgical intervention was avoided.

Estimated savings

Estimated savings were at least $1,000

More importantly: escalation was avoided.

Case 3: Robert - Post-Surgical Shoulder Pain

Robert, 46, had undergone shoulder tendon repair 18 months prior.

Despite conventional rehabilitation, he experienced persistent winter pain and was reluctant to increase medication.

After one trained session with six quadrapolar magnets strategically placed:

His pain and aching were significantly relieved

The insurer initially hesitated to fund the devices.

Estimated savings

They later recognised that ongoing medication would exceed the one-off device cost.

Estimated annual saving: $1,200

Case 4: Jason - Lumbar Disc Bulge with Radicular Pain

Jason was 32. Sole income earner. Four children. MRI-confirmed posterior disc bulge with severe referred leg pain.

Conventional therapy plateaued. He returned only to restricted duties. Medication use was substantial.

Then magnets were introduced alongside therapist training.

He progressed beyond the plateau. Returned to full-time general sales duties. Surgery may have been avoided

Estimated savings

Estimated savings:

• $30,000 in redeployment and medication.

• Potential $20,000 surgical avoidance.

What This Wasn’t

This was not a cure claim.

Bill still had degenerative changes.

Jason still had to manage behaviour and workload.

Robert still required strategic placement.

But something shifted.

• Pain became manageable.

• Function improved.

• Medication reliance reduced.

• Escalation slowed.

And importantly, therapist skill improved outcomes over time

That observation alone is profound.

Even in 2001 they were recognising that placement mattered.

What This Means Today

We now describe this framework as:

Field | Dose | Placement

1. The field gradient matters.

2. The size of the device matters.

3. Where you put it matters.

What Chameleon Consultants documented in 2001 was not hype.

It was early health-economics.

• Return to work metrics.

• Reduced insurer burden.

• Reduced medication costs.

• Surgery avoided.

Twenty-six years ago.

Before Q Magnets existed as a company.
Before Magnetic Fields were gaining credibility in modern medicine
Before social media.

Just clinicians applying physics to human biology.

A Quiet Lesson from 2001

Healthcare costs have not decreased.

Surgical rates have not decreased.

Medication reliance has not decreased.

But the principles remain.

• Non-invasive.

• Low risk.

• Placement dependent.

• Adjunctive.

The document from March 2001 concluded that Neuromagnetic Therapy was a legitimate pain controlling and healing-promoting therapy without side effects.

What has changed since then?

Not the Quadrapolar field, but there have been many enhancements:

1. The introduction of many different Q Magnet sizes, you can better target different anatomical structures such as the finger, elbow, shoulder and lower back.

2. Producing alternating poles within the one magnetic body, hence allowing for a more compact device with steeper field gradients.

3. The introduction of Hexapolar, Octapolar and Concentrics, thus further optimising placement

And our understanding of how to apply it properly.

And that continues to evolve.

Even today, acupuncturists are developing new ways to combine Q magnets with ancient acupuncture principles to enhance outcomes and provide for an improved patient experience. More on this to come in the coming months.

If you are a practitioner, insurer, or rehabilitation professional interested in understanding how magnetic field gradients can integrate into modern rehabilitation frameworks, please reach out. At the time, Dianne’s physiotherapy practice regularly treated third-party-funded patients, including motor accident and WorkCover clients. In principle, insurers did not fund magnets for these cases. Yet in a number of instances, the clinical progress and projected cost savings were significant enough that quadrapolar magnets were approved and paid for.

Some lessons are old.

Some data is forgotten.

But good physics does not expire.

Until next time, stay curious and stay well,

James Hermans and the Q Magnets Team


PS: Two weeks ago, I mentioned about a MagnaBlog subscriber offer.

If you’d like to take advantage of this, use the discount coupon MB20 to apply a 20% discount to items in your shopping cart.

The MB20 Offer will last until next week’s MagnaBlog.

Featured Articles

Why magnet design matters? Learning from Cow Magnets

Read Article

Field, Dose and Placement in Magnetic Field Therapy

Read Article

Effects of Static Magnetic Fields on Nerve Conduction: What the Science Really Shows

Read Article