STOCKYARD
HORSE  DISCUSSION FORUMS

SomeoneElse

Actually, the science is very interesting. In fact, scientists have only recently discovered how to increase the amount of light passing through an opaque layer by 44%, by shaping the light wave to discover "open channels" (as reported by Scientific Blogging).

__________________
I consider that the thorough-bred horse makes man perfect. ~ James Fillis

sharlas

After reading this thread Im still confused as to why i would pay $270 more for the torkington torch (when i can get the other one for $90), just for the literature - is the torch of higher quality as well??
is it more effective?
If im going to pay $360 for the torkington torch (dont get me wrong - i want the best for my horse) i would expect the charts that come with the cheaper torch AS WELL AS the additional literature for the more expensive one.
Can anyone sell me on why i would get the torkington?

pso

hehe..I asked the same thing!

They both have the same light...they both do the same thing...

BUT, the torkington is alot tougher...Looks like you could drop it, have a horse stand on it etc, and it would keep on going...the cheap one would prob crack if you did that to it!

The casing is better quality (think industrial strength)...and I think the literature is slightly different with each torch...

But HH could answer better I guess!

SomeoneElse

Well, I wasn't going to revisit this topic, but since other people have done it...

I was told to read the science to understand it. Which I have now done. And boy am I impressed:

"Seven dogs "died" during the surgical procedures (i.e. cessation of heart-beat, stopped breathing, lack of corneal reflex, and blood seepage), though all dogs were able to be successfully revived using photonic therapy methods."

Though with yesterday's news that scientists have discovered fish that fluoresce in red (most fluoresce in blue or green), maybe there's something in it.

__________________
I consider that the thorough-bred horse makes man perfect. ~ James Fillis

holistichorse

I too asked the same thing. The major difference is the casing. The red light itself is exactly the same in both torches but the acu-light is encased in a plastic shell and the Torkington is in Industrial strength plastic with very heavy duty glass casing the diodes. I've dropped it a couple of times and it's fine!!Also they come with very different material. The aculight comes with only a CD-Rom containing a manual on how to use the torch and different charts for differrent issues. The Torkington comes with a laminated chart, a spiral bound book on using the torch and essential points and a soft cover book entitled "Simple Health Maintenance" for humans, dogs and horses which is worth about $75 on it's own!! Hope that answers your question?? The biggest thing is durability (& warranty) of the torch!!

__________________

Trojane

Well I shall drop back briefly to reply to this, as McLaren's paper also says: "By using animals, there can be no placebo, hypnotic, or psychosomatic confounding effects."

This is exactly why BLIND trials are necessary. Even though the horse may not express a placebo response the human reporter is certainly not impartial. McLaren should revise his statistical methods manual.

Trojane

Well so much is complimentary you should feel happy.

Maybe there are healer fish as well as cleaner fish?

retroremedy

No you just read the pseudo science marketing propaganda, now go and read the some nice peer reviewed literature on pubmed!

__________________
How people treat you is their karma; how you react is yours. ~Wayne Dyer

TB4Me

Agreed ^^ I don't like that website at all. It is presented like a scientific paper, but it hasn't been published (as far as I can see), and this McLaren guy has never published anything. So even though he cites lots of references, the way he presents his argument hasn't been peer-reviewed, which basically means he can say anything he likes.
In scientific terms, your findings/observations don't mean squat unless someone else in your field but not involved with your research has looked at your results and thinks they are reasonable.
Having said that, I think there's nothing wrong with photonic therapy and there's a fair bit of science behind it, but this guy isn't helping with his crappy pseudoscience.
As for the red fish - you can get a green fluorescent protein out of a certain jellyfish and pretty much put it into anything you like:
Here it is in a mouse

And this is what you can do if you're a real nerd and you tinker with the fluorescent gene to make it glow in other colours, you get a range of colours all expressed by different bacteria

That's right, fluoro stuff is fun *nerd*

Trojane

TB4Me I agree completely! McLaren's paper is a real dogs breakfast and a discredit to whatever might be useful in there.

As for the fluoro bacteria - awesome!!! Do the red ones fix whatever the icky green ones infect?