Talk:Ionized jewelry

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Gemology and Jewelry This article is within the scope of WikiProject Gemology and Jewelry, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Gemology and Jewelry on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Gemology and JewelryWikipedia:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryTemplate:WikiProject Gemology and JewelryGemology and Jewelry articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Skepticism Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Alternative medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

why doesn't this article specify that this item has only a placebo effect marketed as working "like magic" ? is it possible to mention this is quack medecine while staying neutral and objective ? other than leaving an outside like to do the dirty work of telling the reader that this is all a big load (or just understate that this is a big load by association just by leaving a link to a skeptic website) is there a way to say this is snake oil, this is just a small rubbery metal-looking steel cable-shaped open bracelet called an "ionized bracelet" that doesn't contain anything that is even "ionized" (even it's paint is probably non-conductor !) that doesn't do anything more than sugar pills without being non objective ? ... I think I'm just going to add a link to snake oil in the see also section just for that ! shodan at [email protected]

It comes down to NPOV. Specifically, I direct you to NPOV#Pseudoscience.

Gunslinger47 20:40, 26 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To answer your question specifically. "is it possible to mention this is quack medecine while staying neutral and objective?" I just did in my recent edit, more or less. Since I have a peer-reviewed scientific journal as a reference, I can flat out say that it has no effect on pain relief, despite claims to the opposite. As for their other claims, I don't think we can say anything. –Gunslinger47 05:37, 21 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"The flat ball terminal ends hold an international design patent." [1]

The international design patent covers only the shape of the bracelet, not its function. It is pointless to mention this in the article, so I am removing it.

Gunslinger47 22:03, 17 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Previously, the link to QRay.com was removed because "Wikipedia is not for free advertisement". I don't believe that was the contributor's issue with the link. Marketing placebos as working products can be seen as an ethical grey area, however by linking too their page, Wikipedia is not condoning the company's business practices.

To maintain a NPOV, I have linked to both the company's own website and to the Quackwatch article.

Gunslinger47 02:04, 18 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

WikipediaExpert is very insistent on keeping a link to the online retailer. Looking at WikipediaExpert's contributions we can see that all this account has ever done up to this point is create external links to http://www.naturesbracelets.com/. Though, he did fix one of my typos. Thank you for that.

This leads me to believe that this is linkspam. I've removed it once, and asked for a discussion on the topic if there was any objection, but it was re-added. That aside, I don't believe Wikipedia should link to places to buy products off of pages which discuss them. If you go to the entry on Shoes, for example, you wouldn't want to see them linking to a random online shoe retailer.

So, anyway. I'm going to remove the link again. If anyone objects, please comment here and then I might be persuaded to stop reverting your contributions in the future.–Gunslinger47 02:03, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in complete agreement with ye. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 08:16, 25 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

User:Suraky made this contribution:

==Ionization==
Ionized bracelets are not actually ionized despite the claims of the 
manufacturers. Solid metal objects are not in an ionized state. This raises the 
question as to how the bracelets can have any of the alledged health benefits 
the manufacturers claim are imbued upon the jewellry by their secret ionization 
process.

I have moved the text from the entry to here because I don't like reverting people, and because I'd like to get some feedback on the subject. The section poorly written, references no sources, and exists only to label QT Inc. as charlatans selling worthless hunks of solid steel. QT Inc. says they have a secretive ionization process, but from everything we know about ionization, this seems highly unlikely. However, it is not our place to call them liars in an encyclopedic entry. At least not without reputable sources. I would not be against a discussion of ionization (or lack thereof) in the page, but if it is going to be there, I'd like it to be phrased much better than this. Opinions? –Gunslinger47 23:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see why it couldn't, however, be our place to point out that metal won't simply be happy to sit around in an "ionized" state. Solids don't do that. Heck, the quackwatch link could be switched into a reference for that. The section was not well worded though, and went too far out of its way to label them as liars. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 00:08, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed a similar contribution in the past. [2] The original text was "Of course, since a solid piece of stainless steel is not at all ionized, even the most basic description of these products are wrong." by 24.87.51.94. As I said before, I wouldn't particularly mind having mention of this in the article, but I can think of no good way to say it. There needs to be some good reason to pointing it out - more than just saying that they're wrong. It's not exactly the same situation, but it's sort of like pointing out that magic markers aren't actually magic. –Gunslinger47 04:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Magic markers don't market themselves as using a magical force, though. Q-Ray does market its bracelets as ionized. This is quite nonsensical. -- Consumed Crustacean | Talk | 05:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Q-Ray Ionized Bracelets ® are manufactured with our exclusive Ionization process. This protected process is what separates Q-Ray from all other bracelets and makes them known as the Serious Performance Bracelet®." [3]

Whatever that means…
Well, giving them the benefit of the doubt - a very big benefit - we can assume that they are using some sort of process unknown to modern science. Either that, or they are using a form of electrolysis or something, inside an ionized bath, and they believe that qualifies it for the term Ionized. –Gunslinger47 18:38, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The only way in which the Q-Ray can be demonstrated to be a Serious Performance Bracelet® is in the financial sense, and only for QT, Inc. As for the issue of ionization, they claim that the bracelets are manufactured using an exclusive ionization process, which can be both true and meaningless at the same time. It wouldn't be difficult to come up with a very elaborate, completely unique ionization process for their bracelets that is also 100% ineffective. They would then have legitimate ionized bracelets, though they would be indistinguishable from identical plain steel bracelets, since ionization will not have any effect on the solid steel. Joel Blanchette 18:36, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That sums it up pretty well. It all possibility their claim of ionization is "both true and meaningless at the same time". I don't think we can say much on this subject, at least not without any sources. I suppose we could say that exactly what they mean by ionization is unknown. According to traditional understanding of science, solid metals cannot exist in ionized states. Alternatively they could be refering to an ionization process, whereby they treat the metal with an ionized bath. This seems to be the more likely option. –Gunslinger47 21:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why is this talk page tagged with "Controversial topic" and why is there a comment to that effect in the article? Where's the controversy? The double-blind scientific study has been conducted, so any controversy should now be resolved. The only thing remaining is the honesty of the advertising, and that's hardly controversial. It's not like this article is about an un-testable question like the abortion debate wrangles with. -Amatulic 02:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's the other way around. The struggle for a neutral POV is not against advocates, but against those who would cry "shenanigans!". It's important to keep a neutral tone, even when dealing with subjects like this. The template is here just to remind people to "read this talk page and discuss substantial changes here before making them" and to "make sure you supply full citations when adding information". The category is not required, so I'll try to strip it by substituting the template instead. –Gunslinger47 14:47, 29 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've read the article, but it doesn't explain what an ionized bracelet is. What is it? What process is involved? How is it different from a magnetic bracelet? This seems to be an advertisement with no additional value. Chris 05:43, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The bracelets are supposedly manufactured with a secret and "exclusive Ionization process". Thus we don't know the process involved. So, what is it? As the article says, it's a "type of jewelry purported to affect the chi of its wearer". That's all we know for sure. It is different from a magnetic bracelet in that it doesn't have magnets in it. –Gunslinger47 20:05, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, gunslinger. Against all odds, your comment really did clear up a few issues for me. And now I have an ionized bridge I like to sell you. I'm a complete Wikipedia addict, but I think this article is a REALLY compelling argument for editorial oversight (as much as I HATE to say that). But your reasoning is sound, if not a bit humorous. Caveat emptor! Chris 11:40, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what you want. Perhaps you could suggest improvements to the article, while citing adaquate secondary sources? What exactly would be done with "editorial oversight"? –Gunslinger47 15:14, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The article says exactly what the bracelets are proported to do, then gives a decent overview of the criticisms and legal issues. It's all referenced. What's this "editorial oversight" and "advertising" about? I don't think that pointing out that these are considered to work through the placebo effect is advertising. The article does not talk about what makes an ionic bracelet ionic, because the companies themselves never seem to go into the details of this; this is pretty typical for pseudoscience/quackery. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 16:03, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I didn't mean to offend, and I don't want anything. By editorial oversight, I meant that no editor in his right mind would include this entry in a traditional encyclopedia. I'm still trying to wrap my head around this whole Wikipedia concept, and I was serious when I said Gunslinger's comment helped me out. Sorry if I came across as snarky. Chris 23:50, 11 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

We were just curious about what you meant, and I was rather curious about the advertising bit, as I hate adverts of any variety :P. The Wikipedia is a little stranger than typical encyclopedias. It tends to include just about anything that is notable at this moment, even if it will eventually be ignored by history. The ionized bracelets are notable because of their frequent TV advertisements, popularity (I've seen several jewlery shops in the mall here that sell Q-RAYs, much to my own dismay), FDA troubles, etc. It never hurts to help inform people about both sides of such a product. -- Consumed Crustacean (talk) 17:22, 12 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw a commercial for this... and I'm wondering how the *bleep* can the metal be ionized? I'm just a university student, but in order for metals to lose their electrons, massive amounts (depending on the metal) but usually at least constant energy needs to be applied to remove the electrons from the metal orbits. This creates an ion, which is a positively or negatively charged particle. Ions are everywhere, and in the gas phase known as plasma, ex. flouresent (sp?) tubes. Metals also have ionization potentials, ie, lighting lithium or copper with high temperature flames will cause the metals to become ions which has a distinct color (eg, fireworks). So I'm sort of at lost here at how this bracelet at equilibrium can be ionizing (eg. giving the wearer any effect other then being just an ordinary bracelet?) or are the manufacturers refering that it has been ionized and now rests in its non ionic state so that it has be "ionized" but is now just like any other ordinary piece of metal? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 129.128.146.215 (talk • contribs).

Please read the talk page you're posting to. There are two topics discussing that already. Namely, the very last topic to be posted, #What is an ionized bracelet? and two topics before, #Ionization. –Gunslinger47 18:20, 4 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, why isn't this topic of what exactly is ionizing about the bracelet on the front page?Darkcurrent 01:18, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We don't know "what exactly" is ionizing about the bracelet, therefor we can't put it in the article. –Gunslinger47 01:53, 6 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

well then why not add something that says along the lines of "becasue of the vagueness of the company, it is currently unknown what is ionized about this bracelet, thereby making it impossible to discredit this bracelet"

Further, the title of the article is Ionized bracelet. Doesn't this imply the damn bracelet has been ionized?

If they said it's ionizing, then that's clearly impossible because in order for something to be IONIZING, a charge is needed, which automatically means energy input is required, specifically electricity since we haven't found a metal that converts heat directly into electricity, I call bullshit on this and it should say somewhere in the article about it. If they said it was IONIZED then you could make a note on the article that many ordinary objects are ionized, ie anything with electroplating or the mercury in florescent lamps etc..

I mean, the article title is "ionized bracelet" yet the article didn't even contain a link to ionization or ions. At least this a lone should be added as people (generally) don't know what ionized mean, and this article does little to clarify that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Darkcurrent (talk • contribs).

I'm sorry, but if you want to call QT a "lying piece of shit" in this article,[4] you're going to need a reference. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not it is true. –Gunslinger47 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I think that the lead paragraph really does need to have at least one forceful line from the mainstream opinion on it that explains the mainstream case, particularly as a good chunk of this article is poorly sourced to promotional material for the devices themselves.

I like this addition:

In a 2006 US Circuit Court case, Judge Frank Easterbrook ruled, of the purported claims for the Q-Ray bracelet, that "Defendants might as well have said: Beneficent creatures from the 17th dimension use this bracelet as a beacon to locate people who need pain relief, and whisk them off to their home world every night to provide help in ways unknown to our science", and ordered the surrender of $16 million (US) and to refund $87 million to customers.^[1]

As te quote is strong, sets out the mainstream position in a forceful way, and thus serves to make the article more NPOV. It doesn't have to be that, but we shoudl include something. Adam Cuerden ^talk 02:10, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

That's interesting that you've mentioned WP:NPOV, as I've been working specifically to maintain this policy since I started watching the page back in 2005. As the article is now, this is the layout:

• A brief introduction explaining what the products are using very neutral and guarded language.
• An overview of the history behind the products using the best sources available.
• A paragraph talking about how ionized bracelets are quite certainly placebos and how companies, specifically QT Inc, have gotten into trouble saying otherwise.
• A quick explanation of what can be verified regarding the "ionized" claim, which is important to have. Many people have come here for answers knowing that solid pieces of metal can't be ionized.
• External links to the websites of the two major manufacturers as well as a Quackwatch link to balance it.

I thought this had worked pretty well up until now. Could you elaborate on why this article does not follow WP:NPOV? –Gunslinger47 02:36, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

WP:NPOV/FAQ#Pseudoscience says that "any mention should be proportionate and represent the majority (scientific) view as the majority view and the minority (sometimes pseudoscientific) view as the minority view"

I'm not sure that it's immediately clear which is which, at least until paragraph 3. Plus, some of the phrasing is a little sloppy in the second paragraph, and that's serving to cause problems E.g. "In October 1973 the chiropractor Manuel L. Polo investigated the effects of different metals on humans, concluding that some metals appeared to offer a benefit when worn." has a lot of words with strong positive connotations - he INVESTIGATED and CONCLUDED that they had a BENEFIT: The only word that serves to lessen this is "appeared to", but that is a very weak modifier.

In short, it takes some time for the mainstream and minority to become clear, and someone who just wants a little information about it may not read that far. I think we could do a bit better. Adam Cuerden ^talk 03:02, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. Perhaps we could move the second paragraph down, then? It was placed there originally because it was in chronological order, and it made a good lead into the second paragraph.

As for the phrasing of the history section, it is difficult because on one hand, you don't want to treat their account of history as if they were lying, but you also don't want to take everything they say as gospel. Sadly first-party accounts are the best historic sources that are available on the subject. This is the original phrasing from the reference:

"...iniciated[sic] a deep investigation about the therapeutical powers of some certain metals in the organism.The conclusion that he came to, was that effectively some metals had some kind of benefit on the human body."

The most likely reality is he did some sort of non-scientific test as was fooled by the placebo effect. The current article's phrasing tries to reflect this: "Polo investigated the effects of different metals on humans, concluding that some metals appeared to offer a benefit when worn." I think the best choice is to choose some less scientific sounding terms. From a "conclusion" into a "belief", for example, similar how the article later says "Believing that it had reduced his lower back pain, [Park] was inspired..."

As a side note, many people don't realize that chiropractors are not scientists or doctors, and that this sort of investigation is outside of his area of expertise. Stripping the mention of his profession might help avoid any undue credibility it could offer to his investigation. –Gunslinger47 04:03, 22 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I made a change to the history section to reflect some of your concerns.[5] –Gunslinger47 03:32, 24 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With "Ion Therapy", when suitably purged of commercial advertisement. Redheylin (talk) 17:53, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Besides lexical similarities and an unhealthy dose of pseudoscience in both corners, I see little relationship between ion therapy and the ionized bracelets. The article says ion therapy blasts subjects with ions, while the bracelets are made simply of inert metal.

I'm interested though in what part of the article you find to be a commercial advertisement, though. Do you agree with Adam Cuerden in the above thread regarding the need to rework the lead? –Gunslinger47 01:20, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with him that this is a commercial promotional page as it stands. Do you want it to remain that way? Redheylin (talk) 23:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What I want is to understand your position and to see if you have any legitimate concerns that could help improve the article. You mentioned that this page contains "commercial advertisement" which needs to be purged. Please elaborate. –Gunslinger47 02:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I would like to know your reasons and sources for presenting these two types of bracelet, made by separate manufacturers, one of whom does not call the bracelet "ionised", as in any way equivalent? They are certainly bracelets, but why are they assumed fit to be discussed interchangeably? And why is it said that the bracelets are claimed to affect chi, when the QT Inc. page says that no such claim is made by that company because it has been found fraudulent? That's a POV fork. Redheylin (talk) 02:38, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The CBC says that the Q-Ray was directly inspired by the Bio-Ray.[6] Additionally, they're both called ionized bracelets and they both look similar. I don't see why you'd doubt that they are related products.

On your next point, the claim found to be fraudulent was that of pain relief (relative to the placebo effect). Marketers to this day still promise effects similar to chi manipulation, though they don't always use the term. As an example, this article links to a page in one of the references where it says "ionized jewelry balances your body's chi to help you reach your fullest potential".[7] –Gunslinger47 04:20, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

A quick Google search to find how Bio-Ray bracelets are related to the "ionized" term yields this psudo-explanation: BEGIN QUOTE "The Q-Ray, Balance, Rayma, Bio-Ray are all basically made the same way. The process of 'ionization', 'polarization', 'BioElectromagnetic Regulation' or whatever they choose to call it is pretty much the same." END QUOTE [8] –Gunslinger47 04:26, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The judgment specifically rejected any connection with chinese medicine, saying it was simply made up, but this is not noted here. The judgment prevents all claims, not only pain-relief. There is no alternative account here of how Park concluded that a Spanish bracelet worked through "chi". All of your references are internet sales sites. This site is your own personal synthesis of sales pitches without any kind of notable and reliable source for its standpoint and its assertions. You say you are quoting a pseudo-explanation, yet the article is structured about this explanation according to your own views.

I note your statement that the "bio-ray" is called an ionised bracelet, that it is made the same way and that it promises effects which, according to your personal POV are "similar to chi manipulation". Apart from your "pseudo" explanation of the second point, you have not supported these statements in the text. The CBC timeline says that Park marketed QRay after buying the Spanish bracelet but not that they are made, or held to function, in the same way. You yourself say you do not know how these things are made. The statements are now contested and must be removed if you cannot produce an notable and reliable source. Please note that, apart from QT inc being notable for fraud, no article or company mentioned here is considered notable by Wiki. Redheylin (talk) 18:28, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My personal opinion is that the Q-Ray is a useless piece of shit. However, I do not let this influence my editing. Please do not insinuate such things again. Besides being a violation of policy, it upsets me.

We can work together and find a consensus. My job here is simply as a retainer against vandalism and the occasional overenthusiastic edit. –Gunslinger47 05:14, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I finally got around to introducing some of Adam Cuerden's suggestions. We have mention of unsubstantiated claims right in the lead, and I moved the history section down to the bottom. I included some of the information from the FTC06 reference that you pointed out too, then tried to adjust the flow of the sentences and paragraphs. –Gunslinger47 07:18, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:I'm sorry, but if you want to call QT a "lying piece of shit" in this article,[9] you're going to need a reference. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is whether material is attributable to a reliable published source, not it is true. –Gunslinger47 22:35, 25 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be asserting that the US govt and courts are not a reliable source, and that you think we should structure this article to suggest that they may be wrong and Park may be right? Right? Redheylin (talk) 20:51, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

My comment that you quoted was a tongue-in-cheek reply to an obviously inappropriate edit. The U.S. Government and associated court documents do satisfy the Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines, and court-issued statements do assert that QT Inc. lied.

Yes, it's possible that court issued statements are wrong, but that's beside the point. It's not Wikipedia's place to ordain truth. We simply relay the accounts of the best available sources. Even obvious lies have their place on Wikipedia, assuming they're properly attested and available counter-sources are supplied. –Gunslinger47 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

   Frank Dorman,
   Office of Public Affairs
   202-326-2674 

   Heather Hippsley or Ted Hoppock,
   Bureau of Consumer Protection
   202-326-3285 or 202-326-3087

Posted by: Redheylin (talk) 20:18, 8 June 2008 (UTC) (MY EMPHASES)[reply]

Links normally to be avoided Shortcuts: WP:ELNO WP:LINKSTOAVOID WP:EL#AVOID

2. Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research". 5. Links to sites that primarily exist to sell products or services, or to sites with objectionable amounts of advertising.

References don't fall under external link guidelines, so it's okay to use them assuming no better sources on the subject are available. –Gunslinger47 21:54, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This article has some serious flows and mistakes in it. Let's just start with the fact that the so-called lesser known RAYMA bracelet is the original on world famous ionic bracelet, NOT the Q-Ray as mentioned in the article. The idea for ionic bracelets was originally takon on by Grupo RAYMA in 1984 and in 4.3.1992 they were given a medal in Brussels, Belgia for "the merits to progress" and "the idea provided for invention".

Second, for the placebo effect?, the RAYMA bracelets have actually won two respected and scientific prizes for its SCIENTIFICALLY proven effect on peoples health. In 9.4.1992, four years before the first Q-Ray bracelet was made, the RAYMA bracelet won the silver medal award at the 20th international convention of inventors and new techniques in Geneva, Switzerland, an honour that has never before or after this been awarded to a manufacturer of therapeutic bracelets. Also on 1996 the first World Congress of Magnetotherapy said, and I quote: "It has been scientifically proven that RAYMA bioelectromagnetic resonators can have therapeutic effects on the human body by interacting with its biocurrents if worn as a bracelet." And to this day RAYMA is the original and only manufacturer of scientifically proven therapeutic health bracelets.

Third, do the people who write to these discussion pages ever bother to google these subjects and to actually read more than just the headlines of the first three articles that come up. To my knowlidge wikipedia is about facts not personal views and opinions. Just btw. Here's some useful sites:

• [10]
• [11]
• [12]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.16.78.153 (talk) 22:27, 8 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• It's actually the Bio-Ray bracelet that claims to be the first. According to their website, research started in the mid-70s and they had three million users by 1986. If Rayma also claims to be the first, this should probably be noted in the article. One boisterous, unsubstantiated claim on a corporate website is as good as any other. The Rayma sites claim that they started selling in 1984.
• Could you find the reference for the peer-reviewed, scientific study on the effectiveness of the Rayma bracelet relative to the placebo effect? The other editors and I could only find a single study related to ionized bracelets of any kind. A site merely claiming scientific (in all-caps) proof without referencing said proof isn't of much use on Wikipedia. The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth.–Gunslinger47 18:50, 9 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I saw this on TV recently, and it immediately caught my interest. I will stay out of the discussion of its medical efficacy. What interested me were the statements “it will harness natural frequencies that occur in your immediate environment to help tune and rebalance your biofield to a more natural state” and it “works to balance the frequencies of energy surrounding you”.

Energy is defined as the capacity of a physical system to do work (i.e., force acting through a distance). Thus, any energy surrounding you must by definition be measureable: it must have the capacity to deflect a needle on some suitable meter (i.e., perform work to deflect that needle). I am very interested in the measurements of such energy that were made, and how the IRenew bracelet affects that energy. I am also very interested in what frequencies were measured. In my career as a scientist, I have never talked to any other scientists (or read any articles in the literature) involving measurements of natural frequencies that occur in the immediate environment. What are these frequencies? 1 GHz? 10 GHz? Someone please enlighten me. I honestly don't know (talk) 12:52, 19 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

A revised version of that paragraph above would be an excellent question to pose on Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science.

The only naturally-occurring frequencies in one's environment would include the spectrum emitted by the sun, the gravitational pull of the moon as the earth rotates, brain waves from nearby living creatures, possibly neural impulses from nearby living creatures. And there's the earth's magnetic field. All these things are measurable, albeit in different ways and at different ranges. Other than those, the rest I can think of are man-made frequencies: radio transmissions, 50-Hz or 60-Hz frequencies from household wiring and power lines, impulses from internal combustion engine spark plugs, etc.

As to your question about this particular product: I am skeptical that any measurements were actually made. Anybody can make snake-oil claims sound scientific. These claims are not falsifiable, and therefore aren't scientific:

• "harness natural frequencies in your immediate environment" - any coil of wire will do this to some extent. One couldn't construct an experiment to falsify this claim.
• "help tune and rebalance your biofield to a more natural state" - notice it says help tune and rebalance. This "help" can be an infintesimal immeasurable amount, and nobody has defined what a "more natural state" actually means for a "biofield". Technobabble.
• "works to balance the frequencies of energy surrounding you" - any coil of wire will affect a field to some extent; nobody has defined what a "balance" of frequencies mean.

If you ask the IRenew bracelet people for research and test results, I'll wager that they won't respond, or if they respond at all, it will consist of subjective testimonials from people who use the bracelet. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:59, 20 December 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is actually a reference to a university research study on the Irenew research page[13]. There is not an FDA approval yet, so the "irenew" people cannot discuss it with you. Seeing that there is a study, they might be in the process though. Stvclanton (talk) 20:44, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think the universal "every" in the first sentence is too strong. There is at least one study that manufactures use to claim the effectiveness of an ionized bracelet. I am removing the word "every" and attaching an appropriate reference to irenew's research page Stvclanton (talk) 20:49, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Claims, especially health claims, sourced to self published websites are not reliable sources for medical claims. We need better sourcing than the website of the company. Yobol (talk) 21:12, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The sentence says no claims have been substantiated — and that source does nothing to substantiate any claims, all it does is make claims. However, I also agree that the words "even" and "ever" in that sentence are completely unnecessary loaded language, not appropriate for a neutral encyclopedia. I have removed them. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:15, 11 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The intention was to reference the claim of a university study on the website, not the website itself. The problem is that the sentence says more than the claims are not substantiated — it says there is no basis for any claims. The claim of having a study is very different from claiming to have evidence from testimonials. I also want to point out that some other bracelets (e.g. non-ionized bracelets such as the seaband bracelet, which is used for morning sickness and nausea associated with chemotherapy) do have valid studies that support effectiveness (there are several and they are trivial to find and verify). Thus, it is not completely unreasonable to believe that a bracelet could have health benefits — although probably nowhere near as extraordinary as the industry now claims. Since whether this claim of a study provides a "basis for a claim" is more controversial than whether the quantifier every is almost always loaded, I'll wait for discussion. Anyway, my issue was that the wording was (and still is) loaded, and I would agree that even if we had the university study itself as the source, it would be primary research (thus, not appropriate). Stvclanton (talk) 14:36, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

So let's bring some sources citable for medical claims here to discuss. If there is ample evidence that is "trivial to verify" bring them forward. Note that WP:REDFLAG applies here; there is no plausible mechanism for any of these bracelets to have an effect, so we need especially good sources/evidence here if you want to say they have a real effect. Yobol (talk) 15:30, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't want to say anything in particular. I just removed some loaded language out of an article, which I am sure is reasonable. I gave a very specific bracelet that does have a verified medical use: the seaband bracelet (which I said explicitly is not of the ionized family). By trivial to verify, I mean that a single google search yields a list of references. Since you request it, I will list a dozen sources just for effect:

• Werntoft E, Dykes AK. Effect of acupressure on nausea and vomiting during pregnancy. A randomized, placebo-controlled pilot study. Journal of Reproductive Medicine 2001 Sep;46(9):835-9
• Steele NM, French J, Gatherer-Boyles J, Newman S, Leclaire S. Effect of acupressure by Sea-Bands on nausea and vomiting of pregnancy. Journal of Obstetric, Gynecologic and Neonatal Nursing 2001 Jan-Feb;30(1):61-70
• Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J. Acupuncture to treat nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy: a randomized controlled trial. Birth March 2002; 29(1):1-9
• Smith C, Crowther C, Beilby J. Pregnancy outcome following women’s participation in a randomised controlled trial of acupuncture to treat nausea and vomiting in early pregnancy.
• Complementary Therapies in Medicine 2002 June;10(2):78-83
• Ballatori E, Roila F, Ruggeri B, Betti M, Sarti S, Soru G, Cruciani G, Di Maio M, Andrea B, Deuson RR. The impact of chemotherapy-induced nausea and vomiting on health-related quality of life. Supportive Care in Cancer 2006 Aug 29 [Epub ahead of print]
• Klein J, Griffiths P. Acupressure for nausea and vomiting in cancer patients receiving chemotherapy. British Journal of Community Nursing 2004;9(9):383-7
• Ezzo JM, Richardson MA, Vickers A, Allen C, Dibble SL, Issell BF, Lao L, Pearl M, Ramirez G, Roscoe JA, Shen J, Shivnan JC, Streitberger K, Treish I, Zhang G. Acupuncture-point stimulation for chemotherapy-induced nausea or vomiting.
• Dundee JW, Yang J. Prolongation of the antiemetic action of P6 acupuncture by acupressure in patients having cancer chemotherapy. Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine 1990;83:360-2
• Lee A, Done ML, Stimulation of the wrist acupuncture point P6 for preventing postoperative nausea and vomiting. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2004;(3):CD003281
• Dundee JW, Chestnutt WN, Ghaly RG, Lynas AG. Traditional Chinese acupuncture:a potentially useful anti-emetic? BMJ 1986 Sep 6;293:583-4
• Dundee JW, Ghaly RG, Bill KM, Chestnutt WN, Fitzpatrick KT, Lynas AG. Effect of stimulation of the P6 anti-emetic point on post-operative nausea and vomiting. British Journal of Anaesthesia 1989 Nov;63:612-8 50.73.2.22 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

None of these have anything to do with ionized bracelets. Yobol (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I never said that they did. I made it clear twice that I was not saying that. I made a comment and you asked for more information which I provided. The original comment stands, and I hope you will discuss what my comment actually says now that I have satisfied your initial disbelief reflex. Stvclanton (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If it has nothing to do with ionized bracelets, then it has no place on this talk page. This talk page is to discuss how to improve the article, not go off on tangents and listing random references. Yobol (talk) 02:54, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'll add that the sentence says what it says due to the cited source, which says of a court decision "the defendants did not have or rely upon any such data.... the claims were not supported even if some studies showed that the bracelets had a placebo effect." Therefore simply having a study is not a valid basis for making claims, according to the court decision. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:58, 12 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence says that no manufacture of a product that is classified in the so-called "ionized bracelet family" has a even a basis to claim effectiveness, and I don't think that reference supports what the article actually says. The court decision does say that a study showing a placebo effect is not a valid basis for a claim, I understand. The decision more specifically says that Q-ray's studies showed a placebo effect and Q-ray does not have a basis for a claim. Since the sentence is definitely derogatory to every company listed in the article, the standard for the supporting references should be a little higher.50.73.2.22 (talk) 21:43, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The line "or the basis for such claims" was inspired by the 2006 case vs. QT Inc. The court was unable to find any basis for QT Inc.'s claims related to traditional Chinese medicine.(1) As far as we can tell, the other manufacturers are similarily without basis for their claims regarding energy/chi maipulation. –Gunslinger47 23:26, 15 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I do understand what you are saying. However, note that "The court was unable to find any basis for QT Inc.'s claims related to traditional Chinese medicine." was supported with a very good reference, while that "other manufacturers ..." phrase is lacking any source. That is my point, and that is my only point. I think the phrase is unnecessary and not verifiable, but not enough so to remove it myself. It's not worth escalating, but I hope you see my point.Stvclanton (talk) 02:35, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about the classification used. The Q-ray, Bio-Ray, and Rayma bracelets are metal, as the article suggests. I could not find a "Balance" bracelet, but there is a Power Balance bracelet that is probably the one. However, the Power Balance and iRenew are both silicon, not metal. I don't know if some bracelets are included that should not be or if the ionized family of products expanded but the defining property wasn't adjusted with it. As far as I can find, wikipedia is the only place where there is any definition at all. Most other references are ads and seem to use ionic to mean not magnetic. I followed the reference to QRay Ionized Bracelets, but it is an advertisement page and isn't very helpful. Also, I notice it does not mention the iRenew. It references the "Balance" bracelet, but I couldn't find any other reference to it. I did notice that every bracelet on that the cited reference is magnetic metallic. However, I also noted that it is a seller of metal bracelets.Stvclanton (talk) 03:17, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I think this article should encompass all those kinds of bracelets and be rename alternative health bracelet or something similar. ~Amatulić (talk) 03:46, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Yobol (talk) 03:50, 16 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

If you review WP:MEDRS, I think you'll see that this edit restores content that does not belong in WP. Medically-relevant claims require a high standard of evidence - namely a relatively recent secondary source. -- Scray (talk) 08:31, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It says primary sources can be used sparingly, and if so they must be at full disclosure. It is research by Mayo Clinic, which is a high standard. Primary sources get less precedence than tertiary and secondary sources. Since there is no other place to get this kind of information, I want to include it. Its the most up to date research, and the date it was made shouldn't discredit it. That section was on keeping articles up to date with the most recent research which this is, the most recent. Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:04, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Its actually a secondary source, [14]. Here's the primary source [15] - Sidelight12 ^Talk 09:41, 30 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Or perhaps not. Many of the links are currently dead. I will try to find archiveurls. In addition, assertions made in the History section cannot be verified. There's evidence on this talk page of past interest in the article and in the controversy, but if that's all in the past, perhaps this article just needs to go away?  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 08:35, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, good. The bot did this work for me.  —jmcgnh^{(talk) (contribs)} 16:07, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Ionized jewelry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20090825181525/http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/qray.shtm to http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2006/09/qray.shtm
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20080509065803/http://www.ionic-health.com/q-ray_balance-bracelet.asp to http://www.ionic-health.com/q-ray_balance-bracelet.asp
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071116132724/http://www.cbc.ca:80/marketplace/2007/11/14/a_qray_timeline/ to http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2007/11/14/a_qray_timeline/
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20071117230307/http://www.cbc.ca:80/marketplace/2007/11/14/buying_belief/ to http://www.cbc.ca/marketplace/2007/11/14/buying_belief/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:57, 25 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]