The Toftness Radiation Detector Is a Bogus Device

Stephen Barrett, M.D.

The Toftness Radiation Detector is a hand-held instrument claimed to detect low levels of electromagnetic radiation from the human body and focus it so that a chiropractor could detect conditions requiring treatment. The device, patented in 1971 [1] and 1984 [2], consists of a plastic cylinder containing a series of plastic lenses. Its inventor, chiropractor Irwing N. Toftness (1909-1990), claimed that energy with a frequency of 69.5 gigahertz emanates from compressed spinal nerves.

According to an article in Dynamic Chiropractic, Toftness was a disciple of Albert Abrams, M.D. [a man whom the AMA considered the "dean of gadget quacks"]. In 1936, Toftness began developing a version of an Abrams' "radionics" device for the chiropractic profession. He started with a plate similar to a drum head that was rubbed, producing a crackling sound similar to that of a Geiger counter. Toftness claimed he could feel heat arising from the spine by simply holding his hand over the patient. Because his colleagues could not reproduce what he felt, he developed his device to "amplify the heat" he allegedly felt when subluxation or disease were present [3].

The device supposedly focused the radiation so the chiropractor could detect it while rubbing his fingers on the detection plate. Rubbing hard could produce a crackling sound . According to Toftness, when the lens came to a diseased part of the back, the operator's fingers would encounter increased friction and start to "stick" on the rubbing plate. The more crackles, supposedly, the greater the "nerve interference" or "subluxation." The purported disturbances would then be treated by low-force spinal adjustments. Toftness conducted seminars to train chiropractors in the use of his apparatus, which he would lease for use in their own offices.

Yale University's Edmund S. Crelin, Ph.D., who tested the device for the FDA, concluded that it was "hocus-pocus" He pointed out that radiation at 69.5 gigahertz would penetrate only about one millimeter of body tissue, while the spinal nerves are two to three inches from the body's surface. So even if a dysfunctional nerve could radiate the tiny amount of energy claimed by Toftness, the radiation would be absorbed by surrounding tissues and would not be detectable at or above the body's surface [4].

In 1984, after winning a lengthy court battle initiated by the FDA, the Justice Department ordered chiropractors who still possessed a Toftness device to return it. However, its use continued and articles about it occasionally appear in chiropractic publications.

In 1989, two chiropractors studied the use of a Toftness Radiation Detector to look for "upper cervical subluxations" in 50 patients. Since "upper cervical subluxation" has no anatomical reality, the study was meaningless on its face. Nevertheless, the authors concluded that the device had "fair but inadequate reliability." [5] Not long afterward, the device was redesigned and was renamed the Sensometer.

In 1992, the state of Oregon prosecuted four chiropractors who had been accused of using a "Toftness-like device" in their practices. Although the chiropractors claimed to have abandoned the outlawed Toftness device, prosecutors maintained that they were guilty of using a Toftness-like device. Their derivative, designed by one of the defendants, consisted of a block of wood with an embedded concave plastic surface, but the "rubbing plate" was placed on an adjacent horizontal surface rather than on the instrument that was in direct contact with the spine. The chiropractor would use his left hand to feel the patient's spine moving the fingers of his right hand back and forth across the plastic rubbing plate. The defendants claimed that whenever their left hand contacted a problematic spot on a patient's spine, friction would increase, causing the fingers of their right hand to "stick" on the rubbing plate [6].

In 2003, the Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board voted to revoke the license of Harold J. Dykema, D.C, based on his use of a Toftness Sensometer and three other dubious approaches (neural organization technique, neuro emotional technique, and live cell analysis). The administrative law judge who evaluated the case for the board concluded:

There is no scientific basis for concluding that the device is a viable diagnostic tool. . . .

Respondent's use of the "sensometer" to alert him to the presence of vertebral subluxations constitutes . . . . unprofessional conduct. . . .

If he believes it works, then his competence as a trained health care professional is thrown into question. If he knows that it doesn't, then he is attempting to defraud and deceive his patients. Either way, he has violated the board's rules of conduct [7].

The number of chiropractors still using Toftness devices is unclear, but 3.3% of American chiropractors who responded to a 1991 survey of the National Board of Chiropractic Examiners (NBCE) said they used Toftness techniques [8]. Subsequent NCBE surveys found that 1.8% of Australian chiropractors, 2.2% of Canadian chiropractors, and 2.9% of New Zealand chiropractors reported using Toftness techniques. The 1998 and 2003 NBCE surveys did not include a question about Toftness techniques.

Despite the nonsensical nature of his device, Irwing Toftness is still held in high esteem in many chiropractic circles.

References

  1. Toftness IN. Lens radiation and sensing device. U.S. Patent #3,626,930, Dec 14, 1971.
  2. Toftness IN. Method of spinal radiometer analysis and corrective adjustment. U.S. Patent #4,479,478, Oct 30, 1984.
  3. Abrams-like devices are Toftness-like devices and rubbing plates. Dynamic Chiropractic 9(14), 1,5, 1991.
  4. Crelin ES. Chiropractic. In Stalker D, Glymour C (eds). Examining Holistic Medicine. Prometheus Books, Amherst, NY, 1989.
  5. Gemmell HA and others. Interexaminer reliability of the Toftness Radiation Detector for determining the presence of upper cervical subluxation. Chiropractic Technique 2:10-12, 1990.
  6. Hyman R. The mischief-making of ideomotor action. The Scientific Review of Alternative Medicine 3(2)34-43, 1999.
  7. Final decision and order. In the matter of disciplinary proceedings against Harold J. Dykema, D.C. Before the Wisconsin Chiropractic Examining Board, LS0105071CHI, Jan 29, 2003.
  8. Christenson MG, Morgan DRD. Job Analysis of Chiropractic: A Report, Survey Analysis, and Summary of the Practice of Chiropractic within the United States. Greeley, CO: National Board of Chiropractic Examiners, 1993.

______________________

Portions of this article were adapted and updated from the book Chiropractic: The Victim's Perspective. If you encounter a practitioner who uses this device, report the matter to the appropriate licensing and law enforcement agencies.

Photograph of Toftness Detectors

This article was revised on May 12, 2008.

Links to Recommended Companies