Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

article name

The title of this article should probably be "Electromagnetic therapy" rather than "Electromagnetic Therapy" unless it is a proper noun.

I've made some changes to the article, but I'm not sure what the header means: This article may also refer to: electromagnetism, bioelectricity, magnetobiology, magnetic field therapy and magnetic healing,

The first two already exist as articles on WP, the others do not. --apers0n 18:14, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

This merge proposal is now listed on Wikipedia:Proposed_mergers#October_2006 so that a consensus may be reached. johnpseudo 19:12, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Criticism section

Most mainstream scientists call the "mechanism of action" completely without physiological merit. I have cleaned up the NPOV in the introduction and brought it more in line with the Manual of Style, but the Criticism section needs to be addressed. As of now, the article holds a pro-EMT POV. --Wooty Woot? contribs 19:14, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Pulsed EM fields are standard FDA approved therapy for non-unions in bones. There are over 1000 articles in the Natl Library of Medicine [pubmed.gov] on PEMF. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.17.78.64 (talk • contribs)

Added a table outlining the types of equipment

Not all the equipment is quackery. But many variants of it are due to technical inadequacies / poor designs / bad calibration / lack of inspection and certification, and too many unknown factors involved with the treatment such as power levels, proximity, duration of treatments, spacing of treatments, follow-up or monitoring by physicians. It is too bad that the AMA and FDA are not 'properly' addressing and adopting the non-quackery elements of this stuff.

Can somebody help in providing some good reference citations for information within the tabulated machinery? Oldspammer 01:58, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Dr. Strecker Rife statement

The following statement:

Dr. Strecker indicated that a key treatment for viruses was the use of Dr. Royal Raymond Rife's Ray Beam frequency equipment, or similar such devices. ?ref name=StreckerMemorandaVideo /?

was removed by an IP user, 87.122.75.74 (Talk) (16,092 bytes) (deleted nonsense)

Yet this Dr. Strecker MD. actually studied the original Royal Rife Ray Beam tubes and frequency equipment with a group of investigators headed by John Bedini in 1974.  Video evidence on Bedini's web site clearly demonstrates that microorganisms (and likely a large category of pathogens) can be 'devitalized' using the original versions of Rife-like equipment. The cited reference clearly indicated that this statement was verified since the presentation given was by Dr. Robert E. Strecker MD., PhD Pharmacology, himself!!!

That the IP user has a POV that says Rife equipment does not work, they should re-examine their stance after viewing numerous videos at John Bedini's Royal Rife investigation pages, and that of squarewaveresearch videos. The cellular walls of a paramecium are likely quite a bit thicker than the protein capsid that envelopes a virus.

If I was the IP user, I would not bet my life against this sort of technology working (if applied properly). Oldspammer 10:59, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Rife has no Ph. D., and no MD of course. Your "reference" is O.R. 87.122.75.74 11:19, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

That Rife supposedly had an honorary PhD, or some or "no education" is besides the point in your argument to discredit Rife, or the above Strecker statement. The videos show the destruction of the microorganisms.

Godammit. Sign your comments! Famousdog 15:15, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Three paragraphs - one signature at the end! Oldspammer 14:17, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

If the technology works, it works regardless of the credentials of the inventor, or the conclusions drawn by Cancer Journal authors who merely "examine descriptions of the equipment," and based not on any science, or physics backgrounds, not on any physics laws, and using only their medical education conclude and declare to the world that the technology could not have worked. Oldspammer 11:28, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

O.R.? Original research? I am mearly citing the words of others, and these people researched the stuff, not me. Oldspammer 11:32, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Entire section deleted by IP user

The section deleted by the IP user identifies the pathogenic causes of the diseases thought to be targeted by the more scientifically inclined advocates of "electromagnetic therapies." As such, the section was on topic. At some point on the Royal Rife discussion, the question of cancer cure came up in so far as whether or not cancer was indeed caused by a virus or not. This section merely cited the references of others to identify the pathogens that are said to be addressed by "electromagnetic therapies." BTW, Royal Rife frequency equipment qualifies as electromagnetic therapy.

The section was deleted without any discussion on where this information should be situated--here or in a different referenced wiki article. I think negatively about such deletions when no discussion takes place.

Someone, me, contributes the time and effort to enter text, plus lots of difficult to format citation references, only to have it "ruined" by another "contributor" whose contribution is to destroy all of my efforts.

Please see WP:OWN. This 'pathogenic cause' section has nothing to do with the topic at hand and is probably best merged into an article on something else. I agree with the IP - it doesn't belong here. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 15:39, 30 June 2007 (UTC)

Pathogenic causes of cancer and other diseases

Viruses for years have been linked to having caused cancer in animals.  Vets have so much experience with cancer viruses that they routinely win contracts from the US Dept of Defense to study animal cancer virus as they might be applied to human cancers. Since the late 1950s and early 1960s, scientists around the world have been trying to link some forms of cancer in humans to viruses.

Gene spliced combinations of bovine leukaemia virus and sheep visna virus have identical DNA to that of certain types of the HIV AIDS virus.  In-vitro human cell cultures were used develop the virus, ergo leading to the hypothesis that diseased monkeys that were used to further culture the HIV AIDS disease were later used to culture smallpox, and Hepititis B vaccines, that in-turn spread the disease to the human population.

In May 2007 some Florida researchers published some findings related to Kaposi's sarcoma that directly linked it to a virus.

In 2006, COLUMBUS , Ohio, Cancer virus protein has been linked to infection of the disease.

Oldspammer 12:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

Scientific Evidence section

Many of these therapies, under the category of 'electromagnetic therapy', actually rely on transcranial magnetic stimulation and other proven technologies. While including them under a heading of "electromagnetic therapy" is technically correct, there is clearly a difference between the phenomenon of transcranial neuron excitation ( which has been well documented and has a proven mechanism of action) and the various quacks promoting magnets and electric field therapies with no evidence for efficacy. While the difference is relatively well noted (for example, one sentence continues, "however, the mechanisms by which this technique work have been established by the scientific method and the use of PEMF is a separate issue from the claims made by some alternative health practitioners."), I still feel that including these proven technologies helps to rationalize the use of the quacky versions of EM. If the article is to present all EM medical devices (which it probably should with such a general heading) we need to delist it from the category Pseudoscience and cleanup and/or split off the altmed claims to another article when we have references. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 06:36, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

What therapy machines are you talking about? All mention of the various machine types and their significance details were removed by 'someone' very recently. If I recollect, mention of this transcranial gizmo was not previously addressed in the article? Why did you not add it to the article in the machine table or get help from someone to format it in for you?

Actually, no--not all are based on your mentioned device! Pulsed magnetic fields are used on leg joints, bones, soft tissues that could provide haven to pathogenic causes of disease--not just the cranium. Micro-currents of electricity are said to be induced to flow in such tissues, thereby causing death to the pathogenic organisms, and also stimulating the formulation of human stem cells. Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D., PhD and Gary Seldon: "The Body Electric"--read some of it. Pulsed DC currents were used directly. This is how the "proving the scientific basis" for fusing bones with human stem cells came about.

Actually, no--The Antoine Priore machine whose reference was deleted by 'someone' very recently (even though it was properly sourced) is in no way related to the machine type that you mentioned.

Quackery: That a given machine is unproven yet does not mean it will never be so. This is why some machines are termed alternative therapy--they are not yet approved. Mention of such devices (or their pictures) does not alone qualify it as quackery nor spam or not WP:RS! The US FDA can jail people for using equipment that claims to have unproven medical benefits--this does not mean the machines do not have such benefits, often just that the machines have yet to be proven or disproven either way through a lengthy and expensive approval process.

Some people 'believe' in experimenting. Other people will experiment only if money motivates them. The drug companies are not going to sponsor medical clinical trials of various types of electronic equipment that could put them out of business. Neither are the cancer institutes wanting to put themselves out of business. There's nobody medical in the USA going to put themselves out of business either. If such information were discovered by these people with vested interests, it would be suppressed. It would be in their interests that all EM therapy equipment be deemed quackery.

Quackery: Take a critical look at Quackwatch. I noticed that only people critical of H. Clark have mention of some supposed brother she had dying of cancer that she couldn't treat. Quackwatch offers no proof that said brother existed, had cancer, and H. C. attempted any treatment--no newspaper article--nothing? No citation to my knowledge? H. Clark is probably a quack for other reasons that Quackwatch does not seem to appreciate.

Quackery: The CA Cancer Journal 1994 article that deals with electromagnetic devices is heavily flawed. Quackwatch, the American Cancer Society (ACS), and other web pages heavily rely on it to persuade people not to even consider using any of the mentioned therapies including pulsed magnetic fields. Yet, all such articles are routinely cited as a reliable source, proving that there is controversy with EM therapies 'all being bad or questionable or unproven,' regardless if cancer is being treated or something completely different. As such, those web pages are really just spamming the public with their propaganda, and not with scientifically deduced information.

Quackery: The knowledge of various machine types should not be suppressed based on it being believed by one faction (or individual) as being quackery. Even after it is proven as quackery, mention of it should still be made with a note that it has been proven as such (or not). Oldspammer 18:35, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I am not going to debate the definition of quackery. The removal was justified based on two things: 1. the more "alternative" machines having sourced claims only by their own websites and no assertion of notability outside that site ([1]for example) -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

The references to web page were largely to identify "supposed shortcomings" with other machines, where that particular author at least itemized such a list of those shortcomings--with associated scientific reasoning for the identified shortcomings. These "shortcoming characteristics" identify machine-types' limitations, and identify that if a given machine type attempts to address those areas where it has "such shortcomings" that that would be suspect of quackery. This actually was "rational skeptical thinking" on the part of that particular web page author, James E. Bare. Oldspammer 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

2. the more medically justified devices having a mention like "microwaves". Well yeah, they're microwaves, so what? Where is the elaboration? Where is the sourcing? -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, the article was not fully flushed out for that and many other items. This is why that machine table section was asking for assistance in augmenting the information. Initially I had used plain textual help for assistance in the actual article, and then that was replaced by someone else's templates--the implications of these templates, I had hoped, was not that I, or the other editor was asking that the entire section be deleted, but help be provided in further researching and flushing out the lacking parts of the article section. Oldspammer 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The entire section is original research which has been sitting in an unencyclopedic state for weeks if not months. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

25 June or so, the machine table section may have existed. It was not OR and had its own references at that time. See above in this talk page where I was requesting help to add references, and build the table more...

The OR part of the section was "requested" about two weeks ago via "notability tag." There afterwards that OR part of the section was only added by me a few days ago before being deleted. As soon as I could have, I would have tried to find some sources for the information, re-worded it and voila--no longer OR.

The machine table itself was still in the process of being improved. Oldspammer 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I know I'm not going to take the time to try to back up every claim and verify every single supposed reference here. The best way to fix this is to remove it and then find sources to build from the ground up. As such, there should be two or three sections, all heavily referenced. One detailing the FDA-approved use of EM in medical therapy (this should be rather large). Another detailing therapies that have been supported by experimental evidence. Another detailing therapies that have not (Clark and such should be here). I'm not trying to say that the "alternate" therapies should not be here. I'm simply saying that they should be clearly delineated away from the experimentally proven technologies so that a uncareful reader does not assume the alternate treatments are experimentally proven because they're in the same section.

Some references for TMS (maybe a subsection with a Main Article: link):

[2]

[3]

[4]

Heat-based EM:

<SNIP - link is on the spam blacklist>

EM and bones (having trouble coming up with non-journal references, media's pretty quiet about this):

[5]

[6]

"Alternative":

[7]

...and that's just 5 minutes on Google News. Clearly these references (news media and journals) are more reliable and more objective. -Wooty [Woot?] [Spam! Spam! Wonderful spam!] 22:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It is great that you found some references for stuff involved here. But, in order for contributors to "combine efforts," there has to be some existing text for contributors to work with to add references to, change phrasings, delete poorly phrased sentences, discuss about in the talk pages, etc. Such large sections are difficult to spontaneously materialize, complete, fully sourced, and in a form agreeable to by all contributors.

If the section needed changes, I would have followed any suggestions made, since I seem to have the time, while you said that you did not. As you said a lot of time has to be budgeted by people to help to fix this article up. Please consider providing even more contributions to this talk page, since your input will be welcome by me, especially if we can reach consensus about lots of things.

I am in complete agreement with you that the table and categories could be split apart to delineate the approved, versus experimental, versus suspect machine types.

This was the first table that I had used and edited so I was formatting it as I went along. As you may know with database data normalization, if you normalize too much you get lots of very small tables with some columns needing to be foreign key table entries. (Can wiki support such on-line dynamically displayed tables at the press of a reader's query button? It would save us having to format tabular displays of such information if generated automatically and sorted according to user's criteria. Sometimes these foreign key tables are nightmarish to maintain so that other tables are not corrupted by bad updates.)

I live in a geographic area that has been besieged by power outages for no reasons. I will be sitting here typing away, and all of a sudden no power for 5 minutes or a couple of hours. This is why I tend to save my work often and may leave an intermediate edit up on-line in various articles. If the power outage is lengthy and I need to get some sleep, I'll go to bed, perhaps forgetting my train of thought until days later when I get back to working on the same article again. Please be more patient with my contributions, so that I might act on any talk page suggestions that you might provide for me or an article. Oldspammer 14:05, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

The studies from respeectable journals dealt with completely different treatments and uses, the description of the patent bore no relationship with how patents actually work, and a couple of the sections were referenced to advertising. Cut it. Adam Cuerden ^talk 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

All mention of Strecker removed

First hand sources for quotations--Google Video is said to be unreliable? Give me a break! The guy was in a documentary film in a lecture, not play acting from a script! Perhaps the video was contra some of your genteel sensibilities, and was slightly too provocative for your tastes?

Please enter some substitute article text that is suitable to your genteel sensibilities.

No replacement text was provided to illustrate the valid information given by this Dr. Strecker MD. individual.

Some doctors and dentists do, indeed, use germicidal UV light in the regard that this person spoke of--no need to split hairs about WP:RS. Perhaps, really you didn't like how the guy phrased his statement?

How much of an expert do you have to be to state something obvious like this? The sky is blue. Source: Go outside and look up on a clear day!

Why is it so named "germicidal UV light" if it is not used in such applications? Oldspammer 18:24, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

China Cancer study reference

The well sourced section that was recently removed by 'someone' conatined numerous references. Removal has broken the China cancer study reference. I suggest that the 'contributor' tidy this trouble introduced by their handy edit by restoring that valuable reference that proves that in-vivo tissue electrification therapy has been clinically demonstrated and is therefore not quackery. Thanks. Oldspammer 10:15, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Article 90% deleted

The article was at one time about 40 kbytes in size (and growing). View article's July, 2007 versions. Even Pub-Med-sourced material was removed by POV editors. None of these editors added any text, nor added references, nor enhanced references. As cited above, they broke references and would not repair their trouble making. Oldspammer 23:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Yep... deletionist debunking school inquisition at work. Even if 90% of the field is quackery, it deserves a detailed article so that people can see the claims neutrally. Oldspammer, I appreciate your work. And I suggest a revert. --Congruence (talk) 23:12, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits

Garynull.com is not a reliable source of encyclopedic medical information and should not be used as such. I've also removed quite a bit of promotional and advertising material and links in line with WP:SPAM. Please look at the sources being proposed and line them up with WP:RS, WP:MEDRS, and WP:V; let's also try to avoid having this article devolve back into advertising and promotional material. MastCell ^Talk 03:17, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi. CyclePat. Garynull.com says at the top of the pages you're linking that the information contained therein should not be taken as medical advice, but yet we're using it to source claims of medical and scientific efficacy. This is problematic. Can you comment here? MastCell ^Talk 03:31, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi MastCell, I see you concerns. The information I used from Garynull.com are references to Dr. Drolet studies, in particular studies that make reference to the Rhumart. (I must state, as you may already know from my message on your talk page, that I own such a device. Nevertheless I believe I can still contribute unbiased information to this article... including even perhaps a photograph of the device) Anyways, I trust the veracity and existence of these studies because I know Dr. Drolet. My Rhumart device even has a plate on the back signed by Dr. Drolet. I can't comment for the entire website or information but I think the bibliographical information at Garrynull.com appears okay. Per the above statment, I believe the two studies from Dr. Drolet are relevant. Furthermore these appear to be substantiated by the website (major hit in Google when you search for "Rhumart Dr. Drolet") and my personal experience of participating in one of the studies back in the 1990's. Furthermore the references on Garynull's website appear to indicate that the documents where published in a reliable sources such as the Bioelectromagnetics Society and the International Journal of Rehab Research.See my attempt here to add links within the main article (without success). I believe the statements Garynull.com's website are paraphrased sentences of the "previously published reliable third-party publications". Finally, I believe the aforementioned statements regarding the precautions I've taken to Verify this information is sufficient for Wikipedia and furthermore satisfy the test for inclusion at WP:SPS. Also Wikipedia's content only really requires "verifiability, not truth." (per WP:V). --CyclePat (talk) 04:10, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

Furhtermore your addition of "proposed by practitioners" makes this feel a lot less like some "medical advice" but a study! --CyclePat (talk) 04:39, 25 March 2008 (UTC)

To further support it's inclussion... I just realized that if you take a look here at Amazon for Gary you'll even find several of his books.

Multiple uses of Pulsed EMF

Google search of C. Andrew L. Bassett 1963 "Columbia University" reveals "Transformation of Fibrous Tissue to Bone In Vivo" article in the journal "Nature." And also "Effects of Electric Currents on Bone In Vivo" article also in the journal "Nature."

Also Google search for C. Andrew L. Bassett FDA-approved reveals

Much credit is due to the late C. Andrew L. Bassett. and his colleagues at Columbia ... fields. The FDA approved the method as safe and effective.

and

The FDA approved PEMF use in 1982, although it remains widely unused ...

PubMed search for "Bassett CA"[Author] pulsed bone reveals 8 articles.

Google search for pulsed magnetic arizona cell proliferation induction cpi reveals a multitude of articles about another FDA approved wound healing method of pulsed electro magnets.

Please insure that this and other important information are incorporated into the article with appropriate citations made from the information provided above. Thanks. Oldspammer (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand what you mean... could you please elaborate? LeContexte (talk) 21:23, 6 April 2008 (UTC)

Someone else, like you, should do the editing, otherwise, I fear it will be deleted. Oldspammer (talk) 19:54, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

I found this Boston, MA, USA, news channel 7 web story via Google search. It is a brain treatment performed using pulsed magnetic fields. The name of Harvard-educated medical center doctor performing the treatments is provided within: Dr. Alvaro Pascual-Leone, Beth Israel Deaconess Med. Ctr. Oldspammer (talk) 17:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Without reference to whether a human-interest bit from a local TV newscast is the best source for scientific/medical claims, this discussion probably belongs in Transcranial Magnetic Stimulation, since that is the specific treatment referenced in the source. MastCell ^Talk 18:32, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Old information, newly found:

1995 Salzburg
... 30 male participants...
For spinal cord-injured men with Stage II pressure ulcers, active non-thermal pulsed electromagnetic energy treatment significantly improved healing.

— PMID: 7546114

and

The effect of diapulse therapy on the healing of decubitus ulcer.
1993 Jan-Jun;30(1-2):41-5 Comorosan S, Vasilco R, Arghiropol M, Paslaru L, Jieanu V, Stelea S.
The effect of pulsed high peak power electromagnetic field (Diapulse) on treatment of pressure ulcers is under investigation. 20 elderly patients, aged from 60 to 84, hospitalized with chronic conditions and bearing long-standing pressure ulcers, are subjected to Diapulse sessions (1-2 daily), parallel to conventional treatment. 5 patients undergo conventional therapy, serving as control and 5 others follow conventional+placebo Diapulse treatment. All patients were daily monitored, concerning their clinical status and ulcers' healing. After a maximum 2-weeks treatment, bulge healing rate was, as follows: 85% excellent and 15% very good healing under Diapulse therapy; in the placebo group, 80% patients show no improvement and 20% poor improvement; in the control group, 60% patients show no improvement and 40% poor improvement of ulcers. This investigation strongly advises for Diapulse treatment as a modern, uninvasive therapy of great efficiency and low social costs in resolving a serious, widespread medical problem.

— PMID: 7982015

However, the following contradits the not just one of above statements, but both by saying the opposite thing seemingly about exactly these previous two studies:

Updated 2006 by PMID: 16625564 2001 Electromagnetic therapy for the treatment of pressure sores.
Flemming K, Cullum N.
...MAIN RESULTS: A total of two eligible RCTs were identified for inclusion in this review. The first of these studies (Comorosan 1993) was a three armed study comparing electromagnetic therapy, electromagnetic therapy in combination with standard therapy, and standard therapy alone. The second study (Salzburg 1995) was a comparison between electromagnetic therapy and sham therapy on 30 male patients with a spinal cord injury and a grade two or grade three pressure sore.

— PMID: 11279778

Updated as follows:

2006 updates previous PMID: 11279778... Two RCTs were identified for inclusion in the original review (total of 60 participants). One was a three-armed study comparing electromagnetic therapy with electromagnetic therapy in combination with standard therapy, and with standard therapy alone, on 17 female and 13 male with grade II and III pressure ulcers. The other study compared electromagnetic therapy with sham therapy in 30 male participants with a spinal cord injury and a grade II or grade III pressure ulcer. Neither study found a statistically significant difference between the healing rates of pressure ulcers in people treated with electromagnetic therapy compared with those in the control group.

... However, the possibility of a beneficial or harmful effect cannot be ruled out, due to the fact that there were only two included trials both with methodological limitations and small numbers of participants. Further research is recommended.

— PMID: 16625564 and Cochrane Review

The contradiction is that opposite things are being stated--the new study about both the older ones.

What was the level of "statistical significance" used as a threshold in these different studies? I ask this because one of the cited studies says "85% excellent and 15% very good healing." Was there supposed to be instantaneous healing of 100%? Were these significance levels set by US-based medical insurance companies?

In the Pub-Med search for >Pulsed Electromagnetic wound< 177 records were found. I checked a few of these and all said that PEMF was found significantly beneficial and one said that "most recent studies" said this.

I examined Google search result information of EM therapy and found that FDA and medicare approved EM therapies for various things was not being covered by "for profit" US-based medical insurance carriers. It is explained in PDF documents from various carriers that one of the cited reasons why healthcare insurance policy coverage is denied for EM therapies was this particular Cochrane review study. These customer policy manuals claim that this particular study sufficiently demonstrated that EM therapies are completely experimental in nature, and statistically likely to provide no useful treatment.

In light of the contradition of the many Pub-Med reliable source studies and this one negative Cochrane review (that seems to mischaracterize the authors of both its subject studies), what should go into the article: the negative point of view of US medical insurance companies, or the actual studies themselves?

The negative studies about EM fields usually involve things like power lines--completely different than the therapy applications.

I suggest that the individual PEMF studies speak for themselves, and that the summary of the studies seems to have gotten things backwards somehow?--Why?--Who knows? So the WP article should be revised in light of this information to at least more carefully qualify the points of view. It also should be mentioned in the article that most US-medical insurance companies currently do not support the use of these FDA and Medicare approved therapes mainly because of this particular Cochrane review study. Oldspammer (talk) 19:24, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

merge - split - violation of WP:CFORK of Energy medicine

I see this article as a possible split to the article Energy medicine. Any arguments? --CyclePat (talk) 00:17, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Energy medicine also treats practices claiming to utilize putative energies. Electromagnetic therapy is a form of energy medicine, so this could probably be regarded as a spin-out article of that one. Neither article is all that long (even including the new section on telluric currents, which is now presented in such a way that I can see why it would make sense in some form here), but I suspect that if we merged all the similarly relevant articles into that one, it would be larger than is preferred. Additionally, the separate article has more room to explore the historical development and worldwide perspectives. - Eldereft (cont.) 06:13, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

LED wound healing therapy

Found some additional electromagnetic (EM) therapy information via the following Google search. And this.

Photobiomodulation by light in the red to near infrared range (630-1000 nm) using low energy lasers or lightemitting diode (LED) arrays has been shown to accelerate wound healing, improve recovery from ischemic injury and attenuate degeneration in the injured optic nerve. At the cellular level, photoirradiation at low fluences can generate significant biological effects including cellular proliferation and the release of growth factors from cells. Mitochondrial cytochromes have been postulated as photoacceptors for red to near-infrared (NIR) light energy and reactive oxygen species or mitochondrial redox changes have been advanced as potential mediators of the biological effects of this light

— Harry T. Whelan, M.D, Margaret T. T. Wong-Riley, Ph.D , Janis T. Eells, Ph.D, James N. VerHoeve, Ph.D4, Rina Das, Ph.D., Marti Jett, Ph.D, -- NATO Doc: RTO-MP-HFM-109 - DARPA Soldier Self Care: Rapid Healing of Laser Eye Injuries with Light Emitting Diode Technology

Could someone other than me add this EM therapy type to the information in the article?--If I add it, I fear that it will be deleted. Thanks. Oldspammer (talk) 15:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Nice. I don't know where we'll put that but I'll think about. I remember hearing about lazer treament as an alternative to accupuncture from my physiotherapist. Maybe it we could start with a broad statement about lazer therapy. In fact, would I be correct to assume that the problem your having is somewhat linked with my Content Fork issue; the idea that Low level laser therapy is most likely an energy therapy just like electromagnetic therapy? What's important in our research is to find the link (which I may have done) with this article but to also ensure it is properly sourced or referenced. --CyclePat (talk) 18:19, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry, could you provide a link to the actual reliable source here, rather than a Google search? I'm not sure what exactly is being proposed. MastCell ^Talk 18:22, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Here is a related news paper article to LED EM therapy.

To MastCell- The Google search result that you may be looking for is the Nato Ftp PDF file within the first 10 search results of the first Google search that I provided. The search results in Google provide the textual values of their links in green colored font. The actual link is as follows Nato FTP linked PDF doc. Oldspammer (talk) 19:51, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I submit that some currently cited "reliable sources" have only minimal basis in claiming that "no scientific evidence of efficacy exists" in general, but rather this argument pertains to treatment of various specific cancers only (and this may also change with time). The EM therapy article must therefore reflect this more narrow qualification since, evidently, more scientific evidence has been unearthed supporting various EM therapies involving wound healing, nerve repair, brain repair, pain relief, bone fracture repair, and so on, and especially when numerous LED and pulsed magnetic field therapy devices have been approved for varous medical uses by the FDA. Oldspammer (talk) 06:56, 12 November 2008 (UTC)

Sensible! However we must be careful that Wikipedia does not become a crystal ball which begins to forshadow the future. Hence, unless we have some reliable source (scientific evidence) which indicates that EMT's actually do help cure cancer, we'll probably need to wait. We could then present the contrast of these two prominent sources and how they disagree. Nevertheless, if we do find a source, I assume that the POV will most likely be held by a small amount of people, which means we will need to only include a small mention. Hence, to answer your question, keep digging and searching and the more reliable sources you find for a POV the more chances we'll get to talk about it in this article! I believe one important element you raise and the question you should be asking is: How do you associate a device (such as LED, Pulsed EMF) with this article? What I'm asking is that you make the direct link between your LED and Pulsed Electromagnetic therapy (PEMT). You may in fact need to create, as I've done with the Rhumart, so people can better understand that it is an EM Pulsed Therapy device, an article on the device. Or then again, maybe not... No matter the case... sources, sources, sources (assides: should we make a song on that?) --CyclePat (talk) 15:27, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

The future? The PEMF devices were FDA approved in 1982--see sections above this one. And the LEDs thing was confirmed a few years ago--with more confirmations appearing yearly. Please have someone other than me change the article since more people are adding qualifications that all this stuff is not backed by any scientific evidence of efficacy, and I fear that if I do the changes it will be deleted. Oldspammer (talk) 17:37, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Telluric

Should this be in Magnet_therapy. Note I don't have an opinion either way, its not entirely clear to me if its a magnetic therapy or something else... Guyonthesubway (talk) 20:58, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

EMF therapy and EMF dangers

This article is about EMFs being used as a therapy. (EMFs, may I add, encompas a large electromagnetic spectrum). More specifically, it is important for us to provide well referenced information regarding the effects or adverse effects on health from EMFs. The correlation is quite relevant. Just because one article is biased toward the "negative" effects of EMF on health does not mean that the article should not be utilized. As explained in the article "There is strong evidence that exposure to electromagnetic fields can have effects on health, the problem can no longer be denied or ignored." Furthermore, the article is published in a reputable peer-reviewed magazine called Health and Medical Horizons, 1990, as well as The New Book of Knowledge (Medical Edition)(Grolier Incorporated). (Peer reviewed, I believe as well).--CyclePat (talk) 18:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Therapy, not harm. It is not a WP:COATRACK. Perhaps you should avoid fringe articles for a time, until you have more experiance. Verbal chat 21:16, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

The etymology of therapy is 1846, "medical treatment of disease," from Mod.L. therapia, from Gk. therapeia "curing, healing," from therapeuein "to cure, treat." Therapist formed 1886; earlier therapeutist (1816), especially of psychotherapy practitioners from c.1930s. Also, therapeutic was used from 1541 as a noun meaning "the branch of medicine concerned with treatment of disease." When you look at medicine, the etymology can be from medical and then the word medication. Most drug therapies (and I would like to bundle EMF therapy with that) have a level of harm. Take for example Ritalin, Loxapine, viagra or chemotherapy, which, the later may have some very serious adverse health effects (ie. side effects) such as lossing one's hair, etc. A doctor has to evaluate the percentage of harm before presecribing medication. Generally, as I'm sure you are aware, the "side effect" or "adverse health effect" of taking the medication is better for ones health. Where was I with all this. Oh yes! My point is that many therapies have harm and it is our responsibility to report this within an article. As, for WP:Coatrack, I don't understand how it relates so perhaps you would care to explain, because right now it feels as though you are wasting my time, life and joy to build a better article. In particular why don't we focus on how perhaps, as per Coatrack, this article has a "...title that can have several meanings, or a term that is used differently in different fields of study..." and how it is "not a coatrack" because it only covers one definition which is EMF therapy (therapy from various Electromagnetic fields). --CyclePat (talk) 06:50, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Can you explain to me how this sentence "Also, ELF fields possibly associated with harmful effect such as cancer have been estimated to be of the same approximate magnitude in intensity as those known to produce beneficial effects such as bone healing.[5]" has no relationship with the article? And why it should be deleted? --CyclePat (talk) 06:56, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Minor correction, same difference. I believe you indicated within your edit summary here, it's "Not relevant to this article". Please tell me, because I'm quite eager to hear your response (specially, considering how well the correlation is made within that sentence with EMF therapy used for bone healing, and considering I'm quite ready to argue this on various other points). --CyclePat (talk) 07:06, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

Coatrack is relevant as you are attempting to add information about unproven possible harm rather than therapeutic uses. We already have articles about the health effects of EM radiation. Verbal chat 21:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

There something I think you missed in the concept of therapy. I've recently had this discussion with some friends during a pot-lock, all-be it, quite irrelevant who they where, but we agreed that therapy generally involved healing. But we also agreed that there are many forms of therapies, and after listing a few, such as "aroma therapy, boot camp, electroshock (which by the way is a form of EMF therapy), prison, psychiatric, drug therapy (which by the way involves the study of certain neural responses or EMFs to the brain or area of study), everyone agreed that, therapy involves a certain level of "harm" (or side effects). Which bring on another issue. You recently changed the introduction I added. This introduction’s broader scope covered the EM radiation therapy from a broader scope by opening the door to the entire electromagnetic spectrum. This would involve, Sun therapy Sun therapy, called heliotherapy, ELF therapy, lazer therapy, LED therapy, microwave, etc. (more about that later). Anyways, unproven or proven has no bearing on the issue. It's all about who says what. Most studies, anyways, indicate that further studies are require. So, when it come to reporting these studies they should be treated as primary information per Wikipedia's guidelines. In this specific case, the information is reported in secondary channel. I see no issue of "coat racking" by explaining what the basic principles of EMF or EM radiation are. And I fail to understand the above explanation because there is no direct correlation with the rules. Specifically I see no issues in having an explanation that there are accepted studies from reputable sources (peer-reviewed) regarding the health effects of EM radiation. Having "spin out" articles on EM radiation does not limit, and should not annihilate the possibility of talking about the related issue. Otherwise we couldn't mention that computer use electricity at a certain type of frequency or that apples have a certain type sugar. That is what is happening when you remove information regarding the side effects. Side effects, as I've proven in the aforementioned statements of this recent discussion, do have an important place within the article. Furthermore, I believe I've also proven that there is at least on documented case which makes a correlation with "ELF fields possibly associated with harmful effect"... and "...those that produce beneficial effects, such as bone healing." Can you please answer the question by being more specific to our current situation and referencing the exact section of the rules you believe apply to our situation? Thank you.

Also, it is bad form to use brakets (ie. (Lazer therapy, light therapy, etc.) ) This information should be incorperated directly within a sentence. (p.s.; I am talking about the introduction). --CyclePat (talk) 19:02, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Revert

I disagree with the recent revert because it removes well sourced information from a reliable source regarding bone fractures. Your interpretation of Coatrack is out of line with Wikipedia's policies. I therefore believe the information should be returned into the article. --CyclePat (talk) 18:55, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ie.: Please explain the removal of this sentence and wheter we can agree to include it somewhere in the article "In the United States electromagnetic stimulation is used annually on approximately 35000 arm and leg fractures that won't heal." --CyclePat (talk) 18:58, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

That sentence can be added if it can be sourced to a WP:MEDRS, however if 35,000 people are using a therapy and their fractures "wont heal" then it should be in the criticisms. Although I think the "wont heal" bit would need VERY good sourcing. So for now I think it should be left out unless a lot more WP:MEDRS context is provided. Please provide it below if it's available. Also, WP:COATRACK is pretty clear. Keep things on topic, not digressions (such as Ultrasound, which isn't EM). Verbal chat 19:07, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Also note that this article is about the alternative medicine modality, not mainstream medical uses of devices employing electromagnetic fields. Verbal chat 19:15, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with that limitation. It is not clear. I believe there is a large gray area of alternative medice modality and mainstream medical uses which overlap within this field. Take for example the FDA approval of certain devices which where originally only used as therapy devices. Or, in short, limiting oneself to quackery devices is a type of POV towards the article. (That's one reason I tried to rewrite the introduction... you will also notice that we talk about microwaves which is currently used by medice. Also, how is one to find WP:MERDS if we limit ourselves to non-medical devices. Wouldn't that make this article a non-medical article? Which would open the flood gates to "less reliable sources"? Because of these contradictions, it's easier to encompass both and if possible to try and encompass all EMF therapies. --CyclePat (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no grey area, if it is an uncontested part of mainstream medicine then it is not alternative, even if alternative practitioners also use it. Verbal chat 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I ask this question because I can't conceive an article that only focuses on unaccepted or "contested" devices. I think that's a major WP:NPOV violation. Nevertheless, I think I understand what you are trying to say, please correct me if I'm wrong, but what you are looking for is the most "popular" of devices. Again, that doesn't really deal with "contested" vs. "uncontested". How many things in life have you seen that are uncontested. I haven't seen that many. Even my own existance (not specifically mine but in general) has been contested by some philosophers. Also, that's pretty much what peer-reviewing does; it contests and verifies the information. Even, currently well reknowned medical procedures, such as Temperature_examination#History are contested. (Aside: I couldn't find an article on stiching in Wikipedia or the article Medical procedure. I guess there's not enough controversy... or grey areas which are contested... or if I can spell it out : conflicting arguments is what makes an interesting article.) --CyclePat (talk) 16:22, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

According to the US Institute of Medicine and the Cochrane Collaboration, there is a grey area. II | (t - c) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Not if they are uncontested. Verbal chat 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

What's specifically not reliable about the, what I believe is a, secondary source:

"Fractures". The New Book of Knowledge - Health and Medicine. Grolier Incorporated and Collier Newfield Inc.. 1997. United States of America, New York, NY, 196-8. ISBN 0-7172-8781-5. Library of Congress Catalog Card Number 82-645223. Reprinted from May 1996 "Mayo Clinic Health Letter" with permission of Mayo Foundation for Medical Education and Research, Rochester. Note: This book is also published under the title "Health & Medical Year Book 1997". ISBN 1571611193 or ISBN 9781571611192.

I agree we could remove ultrasound, but only because I haven't found a reliable source which clearly says "Ultra-sound" is "electromagnetic therapy" (even though, as I grudge at the fact that we know it uses electro-magnetic fields). (I think it just needs better references). As for the subdivission... I do agree it makes a mess... therefore, I was hopping we could come to some concensus on how we're going to divide the article's headings and sub/headings. As for the 35000 people using it annually, there is no further indication within that article that indicates the percentage of success rate. The article simply states that it works sometimes and it doesn't work other times. (a republished article from the reputable Mayo Clinic). p.s.: I'm glad this discussion seems to be going somewhere. thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 19:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I think I see what you're saying. We could put the information into a section called criticism... and obviously add the information about the fact that it doesn't always work. If that's the case... in doing so though, are we not avoiding the entire "how are we going to build this article and what will be some of the sub-categories?" It just feels like the article is so empty right now because we have several well referenced facts that could be used in various sub-headings. --CyclePat (talk) 19:39, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is poorly worded. What is a fracture that "wont heal"? Does it mean without any other intervention? Does it mean 35,000 fractures don't heal because of the use of this device (I doubt this is the intended meaning)? More context is required. Verbal chat 19:44, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I paraphased into my own words and cut it down. I believe it is written with sufficient info for EMF therapy. In the main article there could be more information if we care to put some there. In the mean time, To answer your question... when fractures that don't heal it's describe as a failure of "the natural healing process". The natural healing process is trigered by hormones. The article futher describes that "The body naturally proceduces small electrical signals that stimulate growth and hormones." Also, the reasons on why a broken bone fails to heal, according to the article, are not fully understood by doctors. The article explains other procedures, but this information, I think goes outside of scope of EMF, (grafting, imobilizing, casts, etc...) for bone healing. I wanted to concentrate on the EMF therapy and not turn this into a coatrack whereas we talk about how casts are made of fiberglass, traditional plaster or paris casts, internal fixation, external fixation, pins, gluing the pieces together, etc. No, I use a section within that article titled "stimulating Natural Healing" which is, I believe, quite relevant to EMF therapy. --CyclePat (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

My position is that if something is described as electromagnetic therapy by reliable sources, it can be mentioned here, although with possibly the exception of transcranial since it has its own article. II | (t - c) 19:53, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

And anything else that has an article, or is better covered elsewhere. (Such as ultrasound...) Verbal chat 20:11, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

I think transcranial should be mentioned but not necessarily described in full details. (Simarly for other related therapies such as light therapy, ultra sound, etc.) My view is that there is currently insufficient information within many of those articles regarding the related use as EMF therapy. Therefore, I find it quite appropriate to develop a section within this article (which will most likely be quite small compared to the main article and which could be put should be copied into the main article). Also, if there is some information in a main article which pertains to EMF therapy, it should be used within this article. In this case, if it is long, then a summary of the relevant section from the main article should be made. Take for example ultrasound which talks about it being used as EMF. There is, I believe a very large paragraph on this subject matter. In short, I believe, we should briefly sumarize anthing from within a "main article" (with liberty to add a little more information) and if there is nothing in the main article regarding EMF Therapy, then it's prety much "carte blanche"... add the information to this article and the other one to (if possible). And direct to the main. Actually, a recent discussion I had at pharyngitis, lead us to believe that article is more or less one that will redirect to all the various "diagnostics". (ie.: herpes simplex, strep throat, flu, and many other possible reasons for a sore throat.) --CyclePat (talk) 20:20, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Q: Why do you think ultrasound should be included? Verbal chat 20:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Sound isn't electromagnetic. In any case, I'm just talking about things that are called electromagnetic therapy (or something quite similar), and I'm sure nobody calls ultrasound electromagnetic therapy. I doubt anyone calls light therapy electromagnetic therapy, although technically it is an electromagnetic therapy. II | (t - c) 21:18, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Point well taken. My appologies. For some reason I was thinking "all frequency therapies" instead of electromagnetic therapy. Sound, is Longitudinal wave which has it's different frequencies and possible therapeutic health effects. I'm sure you understand that within my eagerness, I've confused EM wave and sound wave. In fact, "An electromagnetic wave can transmit through a vacuum, but a sound wave is a mechanical wave which needs a medium to transmit through." [www.answerbag.com/q_view/176075] If we agree to include anything about "ultrasound", it should be quite brief. ie.: simply highlighting some similarities but that it is not EM therapy. Then redirect to the main article. Most importantly: brief. That's because we don't want it to "coatrack." That's my 10 cents on it. summary: Hence, I agree, the ultrasound section I added should be removed, maybe summarized into one or two sentences on a few of the similarities... but why it is not EM. And if we find the proper reference, how it may be related to EM. Actually, until we find a good reference which makes a relationship between both, I agree, it doesn't belong here. And if it does it's a small POV which should be briefly mentioned. ;) --CyclePat (talk) 17:46, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Nothing about ultrasound should be included; it shouldn't be mentioned or linked. It isn't related! No summary. In your eagerness your are adding unrelated, poorly sourced and poorly written text. Please slow down, suggest edits here, and do a bit more checking first to ensure you're not making mistakes like this. Also check up on WP:RS and WP:OR, which you've been pointed to many many times. Thanks.Verbal chat 17:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

I guess that's where we disagree regarding adding some information. But, I did agree that I did add some information which was unrelated. However, I disagree, that the information is poorly "referenced". In regards to the rules you keep flaunting: Once you've realized your response is a totality; It merely restates the question as the answer. More specifically, in this case you have alleged a violation of the rules because it is a violation of the rules;... Perhaps then you will try to explain in further details. In the mean time, I look forward to seeing some of the information we agreed upon implemented back within the article.--CyclePat (talk) 22:11, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

CyclePat, propose your additions here as you are using sources that fail WP:RS (such as patents, letters, and WP:FRINGE publications), making non WP:NPOV changes, and engaging in WP:OR... let alone adding unrelated information. Do you at least agree that ultrasound should not be included at all? Please propose your changes rather than make odd philosophical arguments that don't apply. I don't want this to be a repeat of the perpetual motion problems you had (which is almost ironic). Verbal chat 06:43, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I will ask for more editor input from WP:FTN in order to establish consensus. Verbal chat 15:51, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Here we go again. totality : ie.: sources that fail WP:RS because because it fails WP:RS. Could you please care to explain? Anyways, I though it was clear that ultrasound, per the current status quo and references, (nothing is stoping us from finding something in the future such as a relationship through Frequency Specific Microcurrent), does not belong in the article. So to answer you question; NO, there is always a possibility, it's just right now that possibility is most unlikely. As for the bone healing, and other well referenced material, I believe you're taking Merds way out of hands. That's why I am asking you to give a specific example within the rules. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 15:58, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

There is an article on electrotherapy, and it isn't this one. Covering much of the removed material, patents and letters fail WP:RS. Read the policy for your answer. I have never stated it fails because it fails, it fails because it doesn't meet the definition of an RS. Verbal chat 16:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Same difference, it fails WP:RS because it doesn't meet the definition of WP:RS. That's still a totality. It’s like saying it's not a circle because it doesn't meet the definition of circle. That’s pure rubbish and almost funny, if it wasn't annoying. Again, do you care to explain your analysis of WP:RS? Because I have read through WP:RS, I have also explain on a few occasion why I believe the information should be includes and we obviously do not come to the same conclusion. Your analysis of the situation or at minimum referencing a specific section with WP:RS, which may help me to better understand your analysis and your conclusion, would be gratefully appreciated. Also, according to that reputable source, the Cochrane Library, PEMF and magnet therapy is electrotherapy. I believe that means this article is a spin out of electrotherapy. My breakdown and comprehension of the order would be Energy therapy --> Electrotherapy --> PEMF, Magnet, etc. That's all that sentence means. If there is a conflict between that reputable source and another one, then it should be highlighted within the article to distinguish the difference. In the mean time, PEMF is a form of electrotherapy. (Not, that this means we should try and perhaps find a reliable source which indicates it's electromagnetic therapy as well.) As for the devices, they are simply being reported as devices that are claimed to be PEMF device according to the patents and secondary, peer-reviewed journals. This substantiates the secondary information which indicates that there exist many EMF devices which have limited evidence of benefits to health and/or no evidence of benefits to health. If you read WP:RS, you will see that this is permissible. p.s.: feel free to get a third opinion with WP:RfC, but I think it would be time better spent on explaining in further detail you conclusion before doing this. --CyclePat (talk) 16:45, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm going to stop discussing with you if you are going to continue to be uncivil. Repeating myself: patents and letters fail are not reliable sources as defined in WP:RS - "Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand." An example of such would be peer reviewed journals when it comes to science and medicine. Patents and letters fall at the first hurdle. I know you are aware of this from past interactions at the water fuel cell page. Electrotherapy is a different article and a different topic, do not make this a WP:POV FORK. Verbal chat 17:15, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well I didn't mean to be uncivil with my comment regarding the totality being funny or annoying. I'm sure we are both a little annoyed this is taking so long. I am anyways, and want to get back to editing the article. I do appologize if it feels as though I'm doing this on purpose but asking for your annalysis seems to be a logical way to proceed. As for patents and letters, you are removing information which is supported by the secondary information. It is permissible to do this per WP:RS if the information is already in a peer-reviewed journal, which is the case. Also, your throwing away perfectly good edits which add some reliable information regarding electrotherapy and PEMF therapy from the Cochrane Library? What's not specifically "reliable" or "credible" about the published material? ie.: Take for example the peer-reviewed material from the government of Ontario's health ministry? And please, also note the other issues I have indicated in the edit summary regarding WP:RS#Statements_of_opinion in Wikipedia:Lead#Alternative_names & MOS:BEGIN, which you seem to be throwing out when you revert. --CyclePat (talk) 17:30, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

1. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulation is a form of electrotherapy, as stated by [dx.doi.org/10.1097/01.brs.0000184302.34509.48].
2. The American Cancer Society is reliable in the sense of generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand and in the sense of WP:FRINGE#Particular attribution.
3. Corporate Health Group erred in their presentation to Ontario by placing a single 1992 study alongside a 2005 Cochrane Review, skewing their stated conclusion. The latter is the same as in point (1), above.
4. I am not sure about bone healing yet, and have copied the section here for discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Re.; Point 1. It is important to note that the Corporate Health Group (CHG) "did not systematically review the literature but rather summarized reviews and studies undertaken by other researchers. As a result, the Background Paper’s content represents a narrative summary of research pertaining to whiplash injuries and mechanical neck disorders in the acute/sub-acute phase."[8]^{[page 6]} That's why the first reference for the Corporate Health Group is cited as (per your point #1):

Kroeling, P., Gross, A.R. & Goldsmith, C.H. (2005). A Cochrane review of electrotherapy for mechanical neck disorders. Spine 30, E641-E648. Summary: Corporate Health Group Inc. "BACKGROUND PAPER FOR PREPARATION OF ONTARIO PAF GUIDELINE WHIPLASH ASSOCIATED DISORDERS I & II - I. Electrotherapies" October 2006. p.22-3. Republished online by Financial Services Commission of Ontario . Accessed 21-04-2009.

This means we are in fact using this as a secondary source. I still believe, regarding CHG and point 1, that this review should be included and that it is a reliable secondary source. The point, I'm trying to make is not regarding TENS, its regarding electromagnetic therapy being considered electrotherapy. A list of examples, from a cochrane study, reviewed by CHG is the only source I currently have. --CyclePat (talk) 18:31, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we may be having a problem of terminology - there are two topics, two articles, and two names being bandied about in this discussion. The names are sometimes used loosely, sometimes to refer to one topic, sometimes to the other. The articles, however, are organized by topic, with disambiguation notices and the like to help our readers find the topic in which they are interested. - Eldereft (cont.) 21:37, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Err, actually they aren't. I wasn't even aware of the electrotherapy article. Perhaps it should be added to the italicized notice at the top? Is electrotherapy mainstream? Is it effective? II | (t - c) 22:23, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that article needs a good deal of work as well. Off the top of my head, galvanic stimulation and electro-convulsive therapy are well-supported (with some obvious caveats), deep-brain stimulation, vagus nerve stimulation, and transcranial magnetic stimulation are somewhere between speculative and tentatively supported, and I am not really sure about the bone knitting bit. As long as we keep radionics separated from anything rational, I think we can have reasonable articles.

Good idea on changing the hatnote - howabout: {{otheruses4|use of [[electromagnetic radiation]] in [[alternative medicine]]|use in medicine|electrotherapy}}. I will go make sure TCMS is mentioned there. - Eldereft (cont.) 23:08, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, again, it is a known fact that PEMF is a form of electro therapy, per this discussion of the cited source. ie: The information to which user Verbal removed from the article. Why should we include this information from a perfectly reliable source? I dunno, 1) maybe because it conform to my afformentioned points regarding WP:LEAD, 2) It's peer-reviewed 3) It fairly reliable. Reverting this fact is out of line and obstructive. Simply put, "how rude"! It's like dennying that Bob Dylan is an American singer-songwriter. If there are no objections I will now put this information back. And, if there are any objections, I suggest you bring on the reliable information. Otherwise I will reconsider adding the information. --CyclePat (talk) 18:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Propose the text about PEMFs that you want to restore/add in a new section below, with the sources that support the text, and we can all discus it, thanks. (Or indicate in the section below if you mean the bone healing bit) Verbal chat 18:21, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Bone healing

The enclosed section has been copied from the article for discussion. - Eldereft (cont.) 17:32, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Main articles: bone healing and bone fracture A number of physical modalities have been approved for the management of nonunion and delayed union fractures. Pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) and capacitive coupling induce fields through the soft tissue, resulting in low-magnitude voltage and currents at the fracture site.:18 The effectiveness of PEMF in promoting healing of delayed nonunions has been the subject of a comprehensive review.:18 In the United States electromagnetic stimulation is used annually on approximately 35000 arm and leg fractures that won't heal. The role and effectiveness of these devices are controversial even among orthopedic surgeons. The devices, according to the Mayo Clinic, have been found to be helpful in some factures but less so in others. Also, the Health and Medicine Journal reporting this information concludes that "there is no clear evidence they're effective.". References: Bone healing

Discussion of bone healing

Well there is more than 134 peer-reviewed articles at http://www.gopubmed.org/ on PEMF which suggest there is a benefit. Our job is not to do a peer-review but, I think, it's to find out which ones are most adhered to. Example: "The value of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) for the treatment of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis was tested in a double-blind controlled study in 29 patients whose symptoms were refractory to steroid injection and other conventional conservative measures. "[9] is an abstract... which is not often used. But bone healing is often cited. It is also often cited in secondary sources such as the reputable peer-review medical journal from The New Book of Knowlege. Anyways, we are supposed to used secondary sources. Most concur that there is a limited evidence, but there is some evidence, of benefits to using EMF therapy. In particular most articles I've seen, in the medical field, concentrate on bone healing. As for WP:RS nothing in that "guideline" (not even a wikipedia rule) mentions the word patent. Can you please be more specific? --CyclePat (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

The first specific concern is whether this is properly treated here at Electromagnetic therapy, or if it should be moved to Electrotherapy. Then we would need to find the best sources for appropriate summary and weight. - Eldereft (cont.) 18:14, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Devices

Okay, what's with the removal of the devices section? This is rubish. By parabole; How can one make an article on apples, withouth talking about the apple tree or the health benefits. If there is a causal link, it will and should be discussed. Please, stop removing perfectly well referenced material which meet criteria for inclusion, including WP:RS and WP:OR. --CyclePat (talk) 21:43, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

See the section above. Mainly WP:RS and WP:COATRACK. Verbal chat 16:06, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

And why do you believe it is WP:RS or WP:Coatrack? --CyclePat (talk) 17:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

See the section above. I believe it fails WP:RS as the only sources were patents and letters. Electrotherapy devices should not be included. Please keep the discussion to the one section. Verbal chat 17:16, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Patents are primary sources, you can't use them to say things such as "it has been established". They are also basically self-published. We had a discussion about them not that long ago: [10] which also linked to [11]. You can of course use a patent to show that a patent exists. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Methods that use externally applied electrical force?

What are methods that use externally applied electrical force? I have removed this information because it is vague and most likely out of context because it lacks further explanation or a causal link to the subject mater. Please see the revert I have done here for further information http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_therapy&diff=286488901&oldid=286485767. --CyclePat (talk) 18:49, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Read the reference provided. Just one relevant section "However, some electromagnetic and electrical technologies have become mainstays of modern medical practice, such as diagnostic x-rays, radiation therapy, magnetic resonance imaging (MRI), and cardiac pacemakers.". Please revert your removal of this sourced information, or propose a rewording. Verbal chat 18:54, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we add that sentence instead? ie.: "...some electromagnetic and electrical technologies have become mainstays of modern medical practice, such as... and cardiac pacemakers." I think it says a lot more. Don't you? I think it frames the article a lot better allowing us to later explain why these devices are EMF devices (should we chose to do so and agree upon the exact amount of information we wish to put). In short, it gives concrete examples of EMF devices. There may also be a type of POV issue regarding this statement, but I think that's minor when it comes to listing and framing the article. Assides from that, the vagueness and possible POV, I see no issues on why the sentence I removed should be excluded (so long as we clarify the vagueness issue). So what do you think on adding the informartion back if you add the other sentence? --CyclePat (talk) 19:04, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

No, because it implies a false transition from "Alt Med" to medicine, whereas it is actually experimental techniques that became scientifically proven and then adopted by the mainstream. The statement as it was didn't have POv problems, it was delineating this article from others. However, I have no problem with "such as X Y Z" being added to the end. Verbal chat 19:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

how about let's try your idea. It would most likely temporarily patch our problem. I don't necessarily, personnally agree with that sentence, (please see below section ""Alt Med" to medicine") but if it's well referenced, clear and precise then I see no problem. --CyclePat (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

"Alt Med" to medicine

Where I see a problem, is that you wnat to use one references statement to decide the faith of this entire article. In fact, this problem goes back to some of problems already discussed regarding the referecing of electrotherapy within this, the EMF therapy article. Therefore, I'm not sure if this will resolve our outstanding problem - the root of the problem and how the article should focus on a certain area of the subject. Anyways, the fact that we are trying to delimitate and have an article which talks about EMF therapy (non-conventional) vs. EMF therapy (conventional medically approved) makes me feel like this is a POV in-of-itself. I say this, because I have offered some references which indicate that "medicine" uses these devices... (ie. bone healing, depression, cardiograms, etc.). The transition from non-medical device to medical device is quite important. This POV could be highlighted, with it's core tenants, but I don't think the article should be blindly delimitated by it's view. b.t.w.: I'm not sure if WP:CFORK would agree with having an article on EMF therapy conventional medicine and EMF therapy non-conventional medicine. Also, Peer-reviewed medical studies often look at non FDA approved "medical devices" just as much as those that have been approved. So what's the problem? Plus, how are we to provide a non-biased summary of the history of these devices if we are only to report on those that have failed to pass FDA approval or that are considered "alternative medicine" vs. medicine? --CyclePat (talk) 19:33, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic therapy is the name a part of alternative medicine. Electrotherapy is the article about medical applications. Verbal chat 19:43, 27 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, Deep brain stimulation was never alternative medicine, arose from genuine speculation, and makes no reference to 'rebalancing the harmonic life force' or any such thing. Historically and philosophically, it makes sense to have two articles - one dealing with rational conjecture and medicine, the other here. We write a non-biased history based on - wait for it - sources reliable to the topic at hand. Given the highly eclectic nature of this topic, we might also consider making this a pseudo-disambiguation page. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try making a temporary page to see what it would look like! However, as discussed bellow, I generally disagree with content forcking.--CyclePat (talk) 18:54, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Rename

Should we rename Electromagnetic therapy to more clearly delineate its topic? Electromagnetic devices in alternative medicine or Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) or something along those lines might work. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 16:49, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

The second is closer to the original intent of this article. Verbal chat 16:58, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

I oppose such a split in the article’s content. Because

1. WP:CFORK States: “If a statement is inadmissible for content policy reasons at an article XYZ, then it is also inadmissible at a spinout Criticism of XYZ.” We haven’t proven if (medical device) vs. (alternative devices) is admissible for content.
2. On the same line of though, this article is about electromagnetic therapy and exclusively its related devices. I believe, electromagnetic field therapy (EMFT) devices are only one element of the article. This element has not been developed enough to make a spin-out.
3. I can consider EMFT an introductory article per Wikipedia:CFORK#Introductory_articles. However, this is quickly refuted by the manual of styles [Wikipedia:Make_technical_articles_accessible#.22Introduction_to....22_articles here].
4. Per Wikipedia:CFORK#Related_articles “it is perfectly proper to have separate articles for each different definition of a term”. However, I see no different definitions. What I see is one definition from a non-peer-reviewed source which appears to concur with another definition from a peer-reviewed source. (ie.: EMFT encompasses certain devices which can be medical or non-medically approved devices). This is not an issue of definition but of examples of devices.
5. My point of view on all of this follow the principles highlighted within (Wikipedia:Describing points of view). “What we most commonly encounter are opinions from people”… In our case, I believe the lead section of this article is heavily based on the opinion of the American Cancer Society’s (ACS) article. Since there are contradictions to the ACS’s statements, I believe there these would be contentious statements and that they should be Each POV should be clearly labeled and described, so readers know: Who advocates the point of view and What their arguments are (supporting evidence, reasoning, etc.).
6. As for the usual use of the term POV, I believe this is a terms called editorial "bias". It states in our policies that “Unbiased writing is the fair, analytical description of ‘’’all relevant sides’’’ of a debate, including the mutual perspectives and the published evidence.” I fail to see that in content forking or in the current removal of material from this article.
7. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming stipulates that “If a genuine naming controversy exists, and is relevant to the subject matter of the article, the controversy should be covered in the article text and substantiated with reliable sources.” By removing the content, regarding the relationship of electrotherapy and EMFT, you are in fact ignoring this rule.
8. There is a problem of WP:DUE weight within this article because we give more strength to the ACS POV, whereas in fact, as I’ve already explained up above, there are more than 130 some peer-reviewed articles which indicate that EMFT does have beneficial effects to the point of being medically accepted for certain procedures.
9. Again, I can’t say this more than enough, so I’m going to quote Wikipedia’s policy on forking from Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#POV_forks. “ A POV fork is an attempt to evade the neutrality policy by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article, often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and major points of view on a certain subject are treated in one article.”

For these reasons, and so many more, to which I do not have the time to explain right now, I express dissent to your opinions to rename or split this article. --CyclePat (talk) 20:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) This isn't a proposal for a CFORK, it is a proposal to rename the article according to it's content and the description in the lead. There isn't a controversy. You are confusing alt med use of electromagnetic devices, the alt med paradigm of "electromagnetic therapy", and devices used in medicine that utilise electromagnetic fields in some way. Also, there will be no fork - just an appropriate rename. I'm afraid you seem to be confused by the title, the scope, and the distinctions between Alt Med and Real Med, and this rename will help stop others from being confused. Verbal chat 20:41, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

Um, Verbal has the right of it - I see no reason to split this article. Also, we rely fairly heavily on the ACS article because they are a highly reputable source in matters relating to this topic, though obviously they limit their scope somewhat more than we should. They are also reliable to make the distinction that for instance Rife therapy is meaningfully different from radiofrequency ablation. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 21:43, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

NO! Absolutely no, per my afformentioned point number 9. More specifically, it doesn't make sense to rename EMFT to EMF Alternative Therapy, because this is a type of POV, and would go against the principles of point 9. Please also see the afformentioned point number 7, regarding Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Article_naming or article naming. The controversy has been previously discussed per the issues I've highlighted with electrotherapy. These points should also answer your concerns regarding Royal Rife vs. Radiofrequency ablation, or Ablation#Medicine or more specifically procedures such as Somnoplasty --CyclePat (talk) 16:55, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Point number 9 is irrelevant, as this would not be a fork - it is a simple rename. In fact 6 out of your 9 points are irrelevant for the same reason. Alt med and medicine are different topics in the real world, so wikipedia should reflect that and not confuse the two, which addresses Point 7 etc. Please stay WP:CIVIL (ie no shouting/all caps) Also, you could do with a spell-checker (try firefox or opera) Verbal chat 17:19, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry if I capitalized my first word and made it seem like I’m shouting. That was not my intent. I understand I'll need to be little more careful and perhaps explain a little more in detail. Hence I believe point 9 applies because if we change the name of this article to “Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)”, the focus now turns towards alternative medicine. On the same line of thought, the facts regarding medically accepted procedures would no longer have a place within this article if we changed the name. I believe EMFT alternative medicine and EMFT regular medicine can be considered branchs of EMFT and should be within one article. Medically accepted EMFT procedures are facts and major points of view regarding the subject of EMFT. Hence if you take point number 9, the medically accepted procedures should be treated within this article with all the other facts. Changing the name of the article doesn't allow for the developement of medically accepted EMFT and hence violates the rules as highlighted in point 9. As for point 7 I believe it is still relevant per the above discussion. --CyclePat (talk) 17:57, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

The current and past scope of this article is Alt Med. There is no fork. Verbal chat 18:15, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

No it is not. Take for example why we talk about microwave ablation. Also, the focus may currently be on alternative therapy, but that's only because you keep adding the ACS statement regarding this and removing perfectly well sourced information that deals with medically approved procedures such as bone healing. Also, I know what this article was originally about, because I'm the one who started it. Whether I started the article or you continued the article or we both developed the article really has no relevance on the NPOV policies. Hence your statement regarding the "scope" of this article being Alt Med. is quite irrelevant to this discussion, especially considering you keep removing relevant information that deals with medically approved procedures. After all, that's why we’re talking about this, so you can maybe accept the fact that there are other facts and POVs out there regarding EMFT which should be covered under one article. p.s.; Notice the difference between scope and focus. --CyclePat (talk) 18:28, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

We have two articles because our reliable sources treat these as being two separate topics. There is some confusion in that the terms are not well defined even though the topics are. As editors here, we cannot go beyond the sources to conflate distinct topics. - 2/0 (formerly Eldereft) (cont.) 20:27, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Indeed. I've been bold and made the move to try and end this confusion. Hopefully we can move on. Verbal chat 20:33, 29 April 2009 (UTC)

Oppose the move; for a start, parentheses are generally only used for disambiguation; none is needed here so far as I can see. Beyond that, it is pushing a POV, however benign. We don't have an article called Homeopathy (alternative medicine).

Whilst I understand that we also have an Electrotherapy article about a different topic, this page move is not going to help. Oli Filth^{(talk|contribs)} 23:06, 30 April 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your feedback Oli Filth. May I also add a little word of advice which supports your logic? I think this "word of advice" is appropriate for our situation because it demonstrates how, as editors, we can become quite immersed into trying to build consensus and it explains that a "few people's idea of useful can't trump the law." I trust we will eventually change it back once we get to it? (I'm just going to take a little time to think about everything that was said here first before doing anything bold) --CyclePat (talk) 04:53, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

The reason there isn't a Homeopathy (alt med) article is because there isn't also a mainstream medicine form of homeopathy which is notable and different from the alternative medicine form. Therefore there is no ambiguity. Verbal chat 08:44, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Dear Verbal, as you are aware, because of your lack of civility, I have given you a warning asking for you to no longer indirectly or directly communicate with me, otherwise I would be forced to report you to WP:ANI. Again, I am requesting that you immediately stop all means of harassment and apologize, especially if you wished to continue to collaborate within this article. I would like to say that, comparing homeopathy with EMF is "out of line". As I've indicated on your talk page, it doesn't matter if you get 10 more people to agree to change the name of this article, it's not right. Changing the name violates Wikipedia's rules. It is wrong to have changed the articles. For example, adding a bracketed parenthesis is just wrong and not proper. It's a clear sign of a POV. As explained, our article should remain WP:NPOV. Second, the allusion you're making with homeopathy and your conclusion that there is "no ambiguity" is pure rubbish. Or if I could explain, in psychological terms, this is a fallacy. A combination of POV pushing, incessant referencing to WP:MERDS (without further explanation), and a lack of civility has me believing that you are simply here to disrupt. Finally, there is a lack of evidence to prove the POV your are promoting, regarding EMF being an alternative therapy. Therefore, I believe, this is a small POV which should only be mentioned slightly within the article. I've taken the time to think about this message and what my next actions will be. Please do not take the afformentioned warning lightly as, I imagine you will be eager to start editing the article, I will now begin editing the article to revert some of the changes you have made. Thank you for your cooperation. --CyclePat (talk) 05:47, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

This is simply a note for those coming from NPOVN/FTN and future readers: the above unsupported accusations are unjustified. I have no problem with this editor, and have not attacked them. I have "attacked" their arguments, hoping to convince them and others. I believe I have remained civil and patient with this editor. Any suggestions from others on improving my editing or other ideas/comments are welcome on my talk page. I have asked cyclepat to strike the above comments, and similar ones below. The interpretations of NPOV, CFORK, and even WP:MOS seem incorrect to me, for the reasons explained above (and others!). Verbal chat 09:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)