Talk:Electrotherapy

This
This needs some revisions to make it more readable. Unfortunately, I know nothing about electrotherapy, and I don't want to remove any pertinent information.

What is this page on about?
This article is deplorably inadequate. It needs a thorough discussion of the nature of electrical energy, and of the history of electrotherapy, in view of the report at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10735134 that says electrotherapy has no physiological effectiveness. The most recent citations for it come from an eleven year old dictionary for engineers. External links, with one exception, are all over 25 years old. The exception is a 17 year old re-edition of a book going back to the mid-1980s.

Nothing is said about the difference between mono-phasic and bi-phasic voltage waveforms, that is, between electrochemistry and mere voltage transmission, and how this impacts upon the nature of the electrical energy delivered therapeutically. Nothing is said about polarity and how this relates to therapy. Nothing is said. As it stands this article is worthless, and needs to be supplemented with both historical narrative and discussion of physics so that the reader, upon finishing it, will know enough to judge whether his/her money should be invested in an electrotherapeutic product or treatment, rather than be gaffed and landed by some smooth-talking charlatan with a medical degree who does not understand the difference between AC and DC. As it stands this article contains no information that will allow any of this. However, it is beautifully in keeping with the high standards of Wikipedia articles that stress form over content, and favor archaic speculation that is well referenced. Gregory O&#39;Kelly (talk) 19:55, 11 February 2008 (UTC) Gregory O'Kelly

Using phrases like "the equation clearly supports this analysis" and making a bunch of assertions about "animal electricity" in lieu of actually explaining a point is not convincing. Assuming that strapping on electrodes to a person and applying DC current somehow increases the "metabolic efficiency" and boosts life span is a massive leap of faith. No evidence, no clear argument. Junk science. 58.107.9.11 02:15, 23 February 2007 (UTC) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 58.107.9.11 (talk) 02:14, 23 February 2007 (UTC).

Why don't you look up Kleiber's law? Pay close attention to the exponent, to the definition of the term μ, or metabolic efficiency, how it is the statement of the efficiency of redox coupling between an energy source and the reduction reactions necessary for organism growth and function. This coupling is like that between a light bulb and the battery used to power it, where the light is the reduction from oxidation in the battery. There is no leap of faith here, except for those who need to learn a little more about mathematical biology and the effects of electricity on the body. Digestion is the battery, and the light is the energy that flows from the nervous system to the somatic structures of the body. Discharging a battery into the body is like having a second stomach, but it is removable. You get to deliver the energy of the calories to whatever part of the body you like. I'm talking amperes here, not volts. Perhaps you don't understand the physics of electricity, so for you anything you don't understand is 'junk science'. Or maybe you were thinking that Wikipedia is for dummies.


 * You have failed to provide neutral point of view, and you don't cite any references throughout much of what you say.  Some of it sounds like personal speculation or original research.  Your use of Kleiber's law looks highly unscientific to me - you seem to believe that the energy potential of chemical compounds used within cells is equivalent to the energy potential of moving electrons - but regardless of the truth of anything, this just plain isn't an encyclopedic article, and doesn't belong here.  69.49.44.11 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

66.215.123.233 00:28, 3 March 2007 (UTC) Gregory O'Kelly


 * don´T discuss about the effectiveness of electrotherapy, just give us references of those more than 1000 publications on that issue. And we should also discuss the issue why electrotherapy is used lesser and lesser  whereas the pharmacological treatment is incresing.Robi123 21:46, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

Should this article be deleted ?
This article does not belong in Wikipedia or any encylopedia. The article employs the language and presentation of fringe science or, worse, that of cranks. Multiple statements or assertation are made which are not supported by reputable sources. A strong distinction must be made between the mystical use of electricity in therapy and and proven scientific use as in applications such as heart pacemaker, defibrillator and similar. The mystical use of electricity in therapy is at best empirical based upon beleif, and at its worst dangerous. I suggest that this article be deleted and welcome the input of others (no nut cases please).Geoffrey Wickham 03:45, 25 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have the biochemistry background to point fingers at specific errors, but this sounds like (pseudoscientific) original research. If this article were *about* a fringe practice of electrotherapy, what the beliefs were and how they were applied, it would be different.  But it has all of this represented as 'fact' and conflated with the discussion of actual muscle contraction devices.  I agree that it needs severe editing or deletion.  69.49.44.11 03:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I to conclude that 'severe editing' means putting up new 'facts'? If you check the history you will see the facts are correct. But other considerations are introduced that, you're right here, render this article unsuitable for Wikipedia or any encyclopedia, since such devices are for the sciosophist rather than the expert. The other considerations deal with things like the role of thermogenesis in metabolism and the determination of metabolic efficiency, which is a redox coupling ratio, and therefore not understandable or even describable in terms of the Nernst equation, or the Goldman equation, since both deal with thermodynamics rather than electromagnetism. Yet both are foundational equations in the accepted neuroscientific treatment of bioelectricity, despite that both are incommensurate with Ohm's Law V=IR. This is not something that Wikipedia could include without removing itself from the ken of the more scientifically-minded, as you are, apparently.

I encourage you then to consider the history of science. Consider that in 1902 no biologists anywhere could have understood the connection between chemical bonding and electricity, consider that Bernstein's hypothesis, from this year, defined the nature of bioelectricity that was independent of chemistrry, and was based upon thermodynamics in which thermogenesis was the measure of metabolic activity. There you have it. This is why electrical medicine was disparaged and dismissed by the AMA in 1937; has shown itself to be largely ineffectual since then even for rehabilitation; was further discredited through its use in electro-convulsive therapy; and is currently making a comeback not only in its earlier discredited form, but also as a way to destroy cancerous tumors. No doubt, since you have a background in science, you will understand the difference between monophasic and biphasic votages. You will understand then why its discredited form will again be discredited as clincally ineffectual. And you will also understand why, in the form of Functional Electrical Stimulation, it is nothing more than late-20th century charlatanry. Understanding physics, you will know that the use of DC to kill tumors (with the cathode and a platinum electrode) is only half the story, and that the way to temper the DC's destructive aspects is to allow that electrode to corrode, thereby increasing the efficiency with which the building portion of the DC's anode can trigger endergonic reactions in vivo. This might sound like pseudo-science to you, son, but you don't know the whole story, otherwise you wouldn't write such vacuous criticisms. 66.215.123.233 (talk)GCOKelly —Preceding comment was added at 07:09, 7 December 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest, I don't really understand the argument on either side. Both sides seem to be arguing on the quality of the content, as opposed to adherence to established Wikipedia policies and guidelines.  The main reason I am posting here is the title of this section, "Should this article be deleted".  To answer that, no, I believe this article should not be deleted.  Deletion implies that content of the article has either been entirely  worthless during it's entire history, in some way in violation of the law (e.g. libel or WP:COPYVIO), or an article by this name does not deserve to exist in any form at this time in accordance with Wikipedia's criteria for content (Namely, notability).  Anyone considering bringing this article to AFD should first be sure to read Afd is not cleanup and Afd is not for surmountable problems.  If instead you would like to fix or improve this article, that's fantastic!  By all means, be bold! -Verdatum (talk) 22:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, this article should not be deleted. Clinical electrotherapy is not a pseudoscience, as some have suggested.  I just added a standard Physical Therapy textbook to the "External links and articles" > "Further readings" section.  This textbooks fourteen main contributors are mostly PhDs and working at separate accredited universities.  The meat of this article's topic is currently found in the history section which details changes over time, and it's clear to me that there is a biased agenda at work which manifests as overuse of the delete button under the banner of skepticism.  It is truly a shame that the Internet appears to have lost some of its leading edge.  One must wonder if the agenda of certain entities is simply to conceal information, and if so, why that would be desired in the new era of open-information and the Internet. To me it is clear that the current version of this article, as it appears on the "article" page represents a devolution toward ignorance and its intentional perpetuation.  71.128.192.243 (talk) 22:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * There is a natural tendency to presume a skeptical bias in these situations. However, I do not think this is the case here.  The bias is instead towards properly referenced and sourced claims. (When last I checked) this article is missing some important facts related to electrotherapy, but the decision was made by another user that it's easier to start from scratch and only add properly cited information than to put up requests for references on each unreferenced fact or section, cross our fingers, and hope the references come about.  Based on the prior condition of the article in terms of Wikipedia policies and guidlines, I personally think it was a good move.  A reasonable person could most certainly argue against this move, but then, that discussion may be found below. -Verdatum (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
 * You (the anonymous IP) are free to add back any material which can be attributed to a reliable source, but I'd suggest leaving the assumptions of bad faith and such at home. The article as previously written consisted of material that was unverified anonymous opinion (at best) or rambling, incoherent falsehoods (at worst), so I actually see removing it as a step away from ignorance and toward the goal of creating a respectable reference work. But that's just me. MastCell Talk 23:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)


 * Removing information about TENS and such, as one of the talkers writes below existed in one variation, and which I seem to recall was in some of the page's history that I briefly read the other day, is where some over-deletion seems to have occurred. It appears the baby was thrown away with the dirty bathwater. Of course any of us can edit, delete, and add or re-add: however, adding followed by others deleting is akin to running in an endless rat's wheel, IOW, much activity that goes nowhere, and the person who thoughtfully adds information inherently does more work than those who point, select, then delete. As this article is now, and IMO, it has regressed past a point of encyclopedic-level content, and is more akin to dictionary-level content. This may be good for textbook sales, though. 71.128.192.243 (talk) 01:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid I find this comment largely incoherent. In any case, again, feel free to add anything attributable to a reliable source. In the old version, there actually was no baby in the bathwater. MastCell Talk 03:10, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

Edit of 25 Sept 2007
This article contains so much pseudoscientific gobblegook that I initially considered proposing it as an Afd; but noting that many statements comprised scientific fact (albeit in many places as a means of support for a pseudoscience statement) I elected to change the heading tag from "expand" to WP:NPOV, to add Fact to questionable and unverified statements, and add WP:Patent nonsense to nonsensical statements. As "Electrotherapy" is a part of science based medical therapy, the subject deserves an Article; however this article as it stands is not appropriate. Others contributors might consider whether the Article should be subject to an Afd. Your views are invited; my views as a medical professional must, of course, be seen as lacking NPOV.QRS 04:19, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Right on! As a medical professional your views are indeed lacking. Electrical medicine, having been prohibited by the AMA, is not really medicine at all, and your knowledge is therefore irrelevant. Indeed, electrotherapy is part of medical therapy, an ineffectual form of it along with chemotherapy, which is also science based, whatever that means. If I dropped an atomic bomb upon the residents of Hiroshima, would this be science based warfare? What does science-based mean? Do you mean that the scientific understanding of electricity in 1902 of physiologists is on all fours with the understanding of electricity of the physical scientists twenty years later? Give me a break. There is this thing now called Transcranial direct current stimulation. Google it. Notice that what is being used is DC, not AC, or bi-phasic DC. Note the wonderful claims made for it. Now imagine that the primitive understanding of the connection between the DC of electrochemistry, is combined with understanding of the bioenergetic role of the nervous system from its very paleobiological origins. The implication is that to go transcranial and affect the nervous tissue, the most direct way is to use the nerve itself to penetrate to the brain, rather than blow electrons through the skull. Voila! A whole universe of possiblities involving the harnessing of electrochemistry presents itself. These possibilities extend from the somatic system maintencance and repair (bone healing), to nervous system restoration following traumatic concussive injuries, Parkinson's and Alzheimers. But wait! There's more. This is where Kleiber's Law comes into play in its modeling of energy transactions in an organic biomass, where that biomass is composed of rechargeable, electrolytic cella. Metabolic rate or recharge rate becomes directly related to the longevity of the organization and size of the biomass. The equation models how the use of electrochemistry to slightly vary the exponent of biomass, leads not only to the increased longevity of that biomass, but also models the relation between food and reproductive strategies, and models the role of energy deficits in mutation, and why genome mass is comprised of so much 'junk' in creatures (like most large mammals, all amphibians, all reptiles and birds) who operate at higher metabolic efficiencies.

This is not the sort of thing people who get their knowledge from encyclopedias even care about if they could understand it. If what you are looking for is a simple few paragraphs, then how about this: Electrotherapy good, some questions, but scientific because electricity is scientific; used for centuries, great results. Now point and click elswhere. 66.215.123.233 (talk)GCOKelly —Preceding comment was added at 07:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

galvanic stimulation
I think this section should be removed as most of it is marked WP:Patent nonsense. dave 00:24, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Though as far as I know, WP:Patent nonsense is not a template and should not be used at the end of a sentence or in an article at all, the problems it pointed out with this section were definitely there. I've removed a large portion of the section that did not contribute (verifiably) to the content. The entire article could use a rewrite for tone and fact-checking, though I know almost nothing on the subject and wouldn't feel comfortable doing it myself. *Vendetta* (whois talk edits) 19:29, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm curious to know, since you admit knowing almost nothing of the subject, how you decided the large portion of the section you removed did not contribute (verifiably) to the content. I am endlessly amused by people who think they know something but, as specialists, have epistemological horizons that extend only to encyclopedias. Geoffrey Wickham, above, well trained in engineering, makes the incredible claim that the 'mystical' use of electrotherapy is 'empirically' based. This guy doesn't understand English, but that is know excuse for his flight from theory and its role in the physical sciences, and his implication that the defibrillator somehow involves chemistry and the functioning of the body. Anybody who understood electricity and the body would know that voltage transmission to smooth muscle in the pursuit of defibrillation is akin to punching a spasming muscle, and not one bit more scientific. What he knows about electrotherapy's history is more than what he understands about the physics of electrochemistry, and that neither is very much. Yet he disparages that which he doesn't understand on the assumption that he knows enough. Hey, Geoffrey, do some research in physics and the philosophy of science before you equate mysticism with empiricism. 66.215.123.233 (talk)GCOKelly —Preceding comment was added at 07:54, 7 December 2007 (UTC) :::The writer above should firstly refer to WP:CIV, then to please apologise for his statement "this guy doesn't understand English" as my use of the word "empirically" was correct in context as meaning "experimentally" see Empirical. Thirdly I assure the writer that, as a bioengineer, I am well versed on the "physics of electrochemistry", including of course the clear understanding, which the writer seemed to lack, that cardiac defibrillation is primarily electrochemical. His use of the word "philosophy", as related to science, appears to be more related to belief systems than to philosophy.Geoffrey Wickham (talk) 02:07, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you, Geoffrey, for your guidance. But no apology is forthcoming. The criticism was that you equated 'empirical' with 'mystical', and that suggests your semantics are flawed. Return to what you have written, and reread it. The problem might actually be in your writing skills.

Since you are well-versed in electrochemistry, and smooth-muscle is what is fibrillating, tell me then where the redox coupling is, and how VOLTAGE TRANSMISSION that does not pass amperage is able to act upon it. Finally, the field of the philosophy of science is more than about belief systems. It concerns the limits of hypothetico-deductivism with regard to the reliance on data, empirically arrived at, for either corroboration or refutation of an hypothesis; it concerns, the criteria behind theory selection; it concerns something called 'meaning invariance' where the meaning of one theoretical term might be mistakenly subsumed by another theoretical scheme despite being totally incommensurate with its original use. The most stunning example of this in the life sciences is the use of the term 'volts' in Nernst's 1888 thermodynamic equation, by Julius Bernstein in his 1902 hypothesis about the nature of bioelectricity. A volt is a unit of pressure. Entropic pressure (Nernst volts) are not electrical volts (Ohm's law), yet all modern treatment of bioenergetics continues to make this mistake. This mistake has been institutionalized in the idea that there are such things as ION CURRENTS driven by proton motive forces that are in every way like electronic electricity, only no electrons are involved. This is the chemiosmosis of Peter Mitchell (Nobel, 1978) that appeals to 'proticity'.

The philosophy of science, in the lessons of Karl Popper who pointed out the limits of the truth tables of logic with regard to hypothetico-deductivism, clearly rules out the idea that the occurrence of results predicted from a theory can be taken as PROOF of that theory, rather than just the lack of refutation. In the case at hand, Bernstein, in 1902, said one day voltages would be measured across neuron membranes, and when they were, they would be due to an ion concentration gradient (Nernst voltage). When the voltages were discovered in the early 1940s this was taken as PROOF that the voltages were indeed due to ion concentration gradients when, according to the philosophy of science, the discovery of these voltages could not be taken as proof of the connection between such entropic pressures and electrical pressures.

Finally, read the section on galvanic stimulation. It discusses Bernstein's hypothesis with regard to the difference between I and R in V=IR where Bernstein (and all of neuroscience until this very day) believes that R can be measured in amperes. Part of this belief is that ion currents (R), a phony bioelectricity, can be combined with an ASSUMED value for R that is either or both membrane permeability, or the capacitance of the membrane (C in an RC circuit) such that the illusion there are such things as ionic electricity that characterizes all of bioelectricity, can be preserved. Did you get that? Ohms and farads are the same thing in biology, in what is called an 'electrically equivalent membrane circuit'. It is this kind of crap that continues to prevent electrical medicine from ever achieving its potential for healing. In its place is a sciosophistic treatment of bioelectricity that prevents those suffering from paralysis following stroke and concussion, from ever achieving the return of motor functioning through the application of real electricity. This should be a scandal. Instead it is an institution. And people like yourself are not helping to refute or dispel the obfuscation of bioenergetics that prevents it from having any clinical consequence besides defibrillation. 66.215.123.233 (talk)GCO'Kelly


 * Again, prior knowledge in the field is not required to notice that non-neutral unverified research does not belong on Wikipedia. Some is left up in good faith, but when it's a disputed and controvercial claim, the general guideline is to delete it until a valid resource can be found. -Verdatum (talk) 18:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

"Notice"(?) that non-neutral unverified research does not belong on Wikipedia? Without prior knowledge in the field? How do they know then that the work is unverified, without prior knowledge? In the latest posting on this subject (i.e., galvanic stimulation) there is a prolonged discussion on the nature of electrical energy, and on the mathematics of metabolism. This is science, and science is non-neutral. Science is full of disputation, and, in this case, it is about the relevance of the equation to biology. Traditional biologists say it is irrelevant because of its many exceptions (as handled, i.e., with 3/4 as the exponent of biomass). Other biologists say the exponent should be 2/3, that the equation is relevant. Still others in the community of mathematical biologists believe that the term for metabolic efficiency should be part of the exponent, that this would eliminate the objections flowing from the exceptions that suggest the equation is irrelevant. Now, tell me, how, without prior knowledge of any of this, is some ignoramus going to 'notice' that the alleged standards of Wikipedia are not being held to? Does this ignoramus, without prior knowledge of the history of science, think that science is marked by unanimity? Why should I have to dumb-down these concepts in deference to the preconceptions of those without prior knowledge? Wikipedia is not a textbook. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.215.123.233 (talk) 00:39, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay in reply, I missed this comment. Work is unknown to be unverified within the Wikipedia article when it does not cite a Reliable Source.  I agree, science is non-neutral.  An ignoramus can see the algorithm, then either see that it is unsourced resulting in the ignoramus either flagging or deleting it; or, see that it is sourced, but the source is either not reliable or not representitive of the factual claim made.  He can then dispute the quality and appropriatness of the source in this discussion page.  Now granted, disputing the quality of a source can potentially get extremely difficult.  In these cases, the fact can be modified not to make the claim in the general sense, but instead to claim it to be the position of that particular source.  So instead of saying "the equation for the metabolism of boron in all known living organisms is 'X=Y'", you can say "According to the notable professor of metabolics, Ringo Starr, the equation for the metabolism of boron in all known living organisms is 'X=Y'".
 * Professionals are nice because they know where all the research is. They are also nice because they can read and interpret the sources already cited to determine if they are appropriately reliable or if they are just hoaxes.  But the professional just adds some content because they just know that it's true, and it's because of fact 'A' plus fact 'B' combined with fact 'C' and you can trace it all the way down to the level of pure logic, that's very nice, but it's Original Research, which belongs published in a scientific paper so we can reference it here; not just published here because this is where people come to learn stuff, or any of a million other justifications.
 * An ignoramus can do this because adding content to any encyclopedia article primarily involves finding a source, finding a fact in the source, reproducing the fact in an encyclopedic manner, and then listing the source where the fact came from. editing any article involves reading the Wikipedia policies, finding content that violates those policies, and either bringing it up for discussion, or be bold and take the steps to fix it. -Verdatum (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Worthwhile
I found this article worthwhile, and took it with a grain of salt, because it explains the different stimulation methods such as TENS and IFC. It doesn't really matter if some think it's a "quack" science (I might agree), because it's still a useful resource. The disputed tag at the top helped me understand that the content may not be accurate due to the disputed nature of it. I found this useful to me, and it fits well in an 'encyclopedia' format for wikipedia. cipher_nemo (talk) 23:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I am currently writting a literature review on Electrotherapy so I will add information that may be useful in the next week or so. My Ph.D. is in Biomechanics/Kinesiology and I've used Electrotherapy (FES) for the past 15 years in the veterinary field. RehabTherapyRehabTherapy (talk) 02:41, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Revision
I have made some fairly heavy revisions to bits of the article, mainly to remove statements which were flagged as unsourced in September and still are, but also to start stripping out some of the tendentious statements which are still there. If I have deleted something important, feel free to add it back with an appropriate source. There's much work still to be done, so bring your pruning saw and join in.

I must confess that reading the article I couldn't help thinking that reverting to one of the mid-2006 versions might give us a better place to start from than this - let me know what you think. Tom Harris (talk) 19:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I took the boldness a little further, though you did inspire me. The article is a complete mess of utterly unsourced original research. I basically stubbed it, with the idea that we could gradually add back information as we find appropriate sources. When an article is that long and unwieldy, it can't be coaxed into becoming encyclopedic and it's often better to start from scratch with sourced content. The old material is still available in the page history if there's anythign usable. MastCell Talk 19:19, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Hold on there. While I fully support this idea, there appear to be a couple deleted portions that were cited within the article, or cited improperly through an inline link.  I can't take the time to review these just now, but to do this properly, perhaps those portions should be readded to the article and then be reviewed individually? -Verdatum (talk) 20:03, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
 * OK, I do see one source cited in the material I removed. It's this paper, which points up a report from the Dutch Health Council indicating that there is no evidence that electrotherapy is effective as a form of physical therapy. The article then went on at length to rebut or explain away this finding by recourse to electromagnetic theory. Otherwise I don't see any other refs (the pre-stubbing revision is here). We should work the PubMed reference back in, certainly, but in a more encyclopedic context. MastCell Talk 20:08, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

As the author of the objectionable material I would offer the only instance of the equation, a paper by Loyd Demetrius of Harvard's DOEB, published in the Journal of Gerontology in 2004, entitled "Caloric Restriction, Metabolism and Entropy." In that paper the suspect equation is Equation (1). I did not figure the controversy about the relevance of that equation was appropriate for the site. As MastCell says, the article was already long, and he likes his science short and well-sourced, apparently favoring sources that date back over 25 years ago, when it comes to electrotherapy, since he is apparently not aware of what's going on in the field.

It is not my equation, and it appears to be misunderstood by the only person I have ever found who promoted it as a mathematically sound embellishment on a more widely accepted equation or power law called Kleiber's Law. Demetrius introduces the phenomenon of electrochemistry/redox coupling to the study of metabolism, and that is what DC or galvanic current is all about. But MastCell wants sources that go back farther in time since science is not about progress, in his estimation. I did not think it was appropriate to launch into a discussion of Kleiber's Law and electrochemistry, chosing instead to expand upon the nature of electrical energy, but I suppose I could have worked into the narrative the essays in the book Bioelectrochemistry of Cells and Tissues", a collection of essays (1995) dealing with the subject of the section, that is, the effects of magnetism and electrical fields on bone and cell. I am remiss here, but 1995 might be too recent for MastCell.  Forgive me.  But the sections extirpated were not lacking in factual precedence.  Though I could also have mentioned Sidney Licht's 1969 collection in "Therapeutic Electricity and Ultraviolet Radiation", a collection similar in number of authors as the former 1995 "Bioelectrochemistry...", ed. by Walz, Milazzo, et al., it did not seem appropriate to what I thought was a more important discussion of the nature of electrical energy and why the results obtained over the last three decades with regard to bone and wound healing, and not muscle building, were a result of failure to appreciate the difference between monophasic and biphasic voltage wave forms.

No, none of the work is original, though it is apparently unfamiliar to MastCell, and some is highly esoteric, but nothing else conflicts with logic or the fundamentals of the physical sciences. What is original is the application of the basics of electrochemistry to account for why electrotherapy is largely without theoretical foundations, a consequence of which is the failure to grasp the relatedness of the many otherwise disparate artifacts of clinical research involving pain relief, bone healing, tumor destruction, and restoration of tissue. This little bit of originality offers theoretical unification of immediately testable, deductive consequences involving the application of electrochemistry to the body to build muscle; and attempts to not argue away (as one author above claims), but instead to explain why the Dutch Health Council declares electrotherapy to be ineffective when so much research has been done to show it can have marvelously salubrious affects. I failed to cite that the FDA, in its regulation on electrically powered muscle stimulators (reporting it had no guidance from the medical community as to what form of voltage wave was known to build muscle), would prohibit the marketing of any said device that passed more than one half of one milliampere per session. This dictates voltage waveform (it must be biphasic, whether AC or DC), and rules out electrochemistry (possible only with monophasic). I did not think it was necessary to bring this out - it seemed too peripheral. I apologize. The site looks a lot better now that it has been cleared of controversial thoughts on the premise that science is about stasis, and progress in electrotherapy has not been made after 1987. Thank you, MastCell. This is what Wikipedia is all about, being a big text book that makes research easyGregory O&#39;Kelly (talk) 02:27, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Gregory C. O'Kelly

As an after thoughT I would like to add that in not a single criticism occurring above, is there any mention of a violation of any law of physics or thermodynamics. Instead, it seems, I am being taken to task for not citing authority about the math and physics I use. Do I need to cite Rene Descartes when I produce a graph? Or Feynman's lectures on electromagnetism to support the now-accepted wisdom that ion currents in electrolytic cells are not I, but instead are R in Ohm's V=IR, a law of physics that clashes with the bioenergetics of Mitchell and Eccles? Do I cite physicists or biologists when there is a clash of ideas?

How am I to introduce these facets in an encyclopedic article on electrotherapy, without losing the reader, especially at a time when the self-appointed experts like MastCell delete with the gusto of a Zionist settler bull-dozing Palestinians housing while having little or no idea of all the history, physics, and superstition that enshrouds the subject of electrotherapy? What is up there now, with MastCell's blessing, is crap like one sees in advertisements for electrotherapy equipment. Tesla currents? No such thing in current understanding of electricity. Click on the term "Tesla Currents" and where do you go? MastCell has overstepped again. Electrical energy? What is that? MastCell doesn't know.

How do these things figure in electrotherapy? What's this guy talking about? Aw shit, just delete, and write it off as 'original research' rather than learn more about the field. Notice that all of the things cited in the paucity of information now up there, were done prior to 1988! And in fact one author (now deleted) earlier claimed to have worked with FES for 15 years in the veterinary field, of all things, and doesn't even seem to be aware that a Brazilian research team in the 1990s did the biopsies measuring the cross sectional area of type II muscle fiber to confirm that FES DID NOT BUILD MUSCLE. After this paper was published the Petrofsky brothers of Ohio (the charlatan originators of FES who, as engineers, thought they understood biology) stopped making the claim that it did this very thing in their advertisements for their enormously expensive product - the Galaxy E-Stim that did the late Christopher Reeves so much good. The arrogant editors who removed what was there about galvanic stimulation still allow the claim to be made that electrotherapy involves the use of electrical energy, yet don't say what this is, and removed all discussion of the subject because of the lack of citations - citations which also are lacking for "Tesla currents" (though this term remained on the site, even though it is wrong). Tesla had nothing to do with electrotherapy; he was concerned with the industrial use of AC, not the therapeutic use of DC. What breathtaking arrogance on the part of soidisant guardians of knowledge on Wikipedia! These editors know nothing about the history or the physics of electrotherapy, nor of the mathematics of metabolism and of its electrochemical foundations.

Gregory O&#39;Kelly (talk) 06:40, 9 February 2008 (UTC)Gregory C. O'Kelly


 * I would recommend reviewing a couple of Wikipedia fundamentals to find the answers to your concerns. Material needs to be directly attributed to a reliable source or it may be removed. Editors are not to use Wikipedia to advance novel syntheses or publish their original research or hypotheses. And please try to comment on content, rather than contributors. It may also be worth taking a look at what Wikipedia is not. If you are intersted in making this a better article by understanding and working within Wikipedia's goals and policies, then let's do it. It's easy. Let's start by listing a handful of reliable sources here on the talk page that deal with electrotherapy, then we'll decide how to summarize them in the article if you interested. However, if you just want to bloviate and blow off steam, then please save your breath and take it elsewhere. MastCell Talk 06:24, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia - the Triumph of Form Over Content
Initially this page was about electrotherapy and its dismal history of ineffectiveness going back over two centuries. Historical material dealing with physics and the history of electrical medicine was provided to enumerate and account  for the successes and failures of electrotherapy, based upon understanding of the nature of electrical energy as it is treated in the physical sciences. This material expanded upon deviations in biological accounts of the electricity of the body from understanding of electricity as a physical phenomenon by physical scientists. This material has now been entirely expurgated by self-appointed editors who know little or nothing about either the history of electrotherapy or the phenomenon of electricity. Their justification has been that citations were not presented that authoritatively buttressed the material, and their response was to hoist entries whose citations not only did not buttress the remaining paucity of knowledge, but which were over 20 years old in every case. One of these self-appointed but naive editors (MastCell) called for mainstream citations on the subject of electrotherapy. If you look at the approved references cited you will see that only two were published in the last 25 years, and these two are both over 20 years old. Furthermore, none of the citations provided has anything to say about the nature of electrical energy and the contrast between monophasic and biphasic currents. Instead we are told of "Tesla currents" despite that Nikola Tesla never worked with clinical electrotherapy, and died before the electronic nature of the phenomenon and its relevance to chemical bonding was understood. The editors are so caught up enforcing formalism that knowledge and content is not a consideration, and understanding of the subject itself is irrelevant. Enjoy! Gregory O&#39;Kelly (talk) 19:52, 9 February 2008 (UTC) Gregory C. O'Kelly


 * The material was entirely unsourced and therefore unverifiable. Wikipedia attempts to present verifiable information; since anyone can edit anonymously, no one can vouch for your expertise or correctness. Sources are a must. If you're interested, help me find some. If not, then vent and move on. MastCell Talk 04:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
 * I fully support MastCell's justification. As it says in Verifiability, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." If you'd like to create an article about Electrotherapy that contains material that is challenged or likely to be challenged, without attributing it to a reliable, published source (paraphrasing "This page in a nutshell" from WP:V), then that's fantastic, go right ahead.  Just please put it on your own website and don't bother Wikipedia with it.  If you don't like this so called "Triumph of Form Over Content" feel free to argue the policy of WP:V on it's talk page.  If you still don't like it, feel free to not use Wikipedia. -Verdatum (talk) 15:08, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Talk page revert needed
This discussion page has been seriously edited by, among others, User:Gregory O'Kelly, It removed valuable discussion content. This content needs to be restored. If the talk page is deemed too long, it should be shortened using WP:ARCHIVE. Please read Talk page guidelines before making similar major edits to the talk page. -Verdatum (talk) 14:54, 11 February 2008 (UTC)


 * I've tried to restore the deleted material. Much or all could probably be archived. MastCell Talk 19:07, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Related published research papers
Whoever added this huge list of resources, where did you get it from? It looks as though it was copied from some other wikipedia article (or a maybe a previous revision of this article). When doing such copies, you want to instead copy the whole wiki markup, and not just the result on the page. Ideally these references should be presented using templates like Template:Cite book. I did what I care to do as far as formatting.

This list looks entirely indescriminate; Without links to the papers, I somewhat doubt they are all quality resources, and are instead an attempt to present undue weight to one point of view. I also question the neutrality of the introductory paragraph of this section.

If you actually did the work yourself to track down and read these papers, then I'm impressed, though I'd hope you'd use the content of the works to improve the article content instead of just throwing up a bibliography and leave it to the reader to do the research. -Verdatum (talk) 14:56, 13 March 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm going to go a bit further and remove these pending further discussion. A (very) brief glance shows that the list includes, among others, the seminal paper from Barré-Sinoussi and Montagnier describing their isolation of HIV, as well as several papers on the treatment of HIV with various medications. These clearly have no direct relevance to "electrotherapy" and mark the laundry list as emblematic of a major problem with this article: the indiscriminate use of inappropriate sources. MastCell Talk 18:47, 13 March 2008

This repeated deletion of references that are in the main directly relevent, including the references to Kali and others work at the Albert Einstein colledge of medicine on blood electrificatio, which was referenced to its source, is testimony to the stupidity of the present method of working with articles on Wikipedia. You think they are not relevent, so you delete them. Why are you afraid to have people see such references? Just because they are not available on the web to link to to does not make them irrelevant. A vast body of knowledge is still not on the web but only in printed form. There are references included sufficient to enable a serious student to track them through a reference library.

Mastcell seems determined to remove anything which points to the increasing research indicating that electrotherapy is an emerging branch of medicine. Any branch of medical treatment which runs contra to the mainstream, ie, FDA and AMA endorsed procedures, has a history of being viciously repressed in the USA. You even removed several references to US patents for the Kali blood electrification process which contain many other references to serious research on aspects of electrotherapy and research results of tests conducted at one of America's more prestegious medical institutions. And the excuse you give, they are not in your view relavant to the subject, or they are a "laundry list". What pompous arbitary censorship of information, clearly with one objective, to continue to foster the illusion that electrotherapy has not moved on in recent years. I suspect that Mastcell is not an honest broker but has ulterior motives for this repeated vandalism of serious references to some modern developments in the field.

That there have been quacks in the field of electrotherapy makes it no different from any other field of medicine. Any treatment which is not drug based is subject to a disinformation campaign run out of several New York PR offices working for the drug cartell, details of how they operate to muddy the waters on any alternative therapy, and even to quell publicity on any alternative research, are available on the net. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.65.206 (talk)


 * It's not particularly useful or productive to assume the worst of other editors off the bat. Please focus on content rather than attacking contributors. The list has the appearance of being copied from somewhere else on the Web. It's not clear what the criteria for inclusion were, as many references have zero connection to "electrotherapy". Did you copy the list from another source, or are these papers you've personally read and vetted which you feel are directly relevant to electrotherapy? I'd like you to explain on an individual basis how each link contains useful, encyclopedic information directly related to electrotherapy and why it can't then be used directly as a source for text in the article. Assuming these links are in fact relevant and encyclopedic, that should not be too much to ask. MastCell Talk 06:09, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

The list of references I originally posted was NOT copied from the web. I obtained it from a research paper emailed to me by the Australian professor of medicine, whom I latter added as the source, after you objected to it the first time. The paper dealt with a clinical study of an electrotherapy device used on AIDS patients in Angola. There were originally some references to research on HIV AIDS in it, because the particular application of electrotherapy was applied to AIDS. I removed them before reinstating the list of references because of your objection on the grounds of relevance. The remaining articles are all clearly by their titles articles on aspects of electrotherapy. Of course I have not read all of them. What difference does that make to their relevance? Do you expect every contributor to this matter to be an expert on every aspect of the subject and personally review and approve it before listing it?

You removed references to the work of Kaali and others on blood electrification, despite the clearly cited source of publication. What is your justification, do you claim it isn't relevant?

You removed the references several US patents arising from the research of Kasli et al which contain details of several novel electrotherapy devices and methods of treatment. Why? clearly a US patent is easily accessed on the web, I don't have to link to it. The patents contain extensive details of Kalli and others work and refer to numerous other related patents for electrotherapy devices. Why are they not legitimate references for an article on electrotherapy. Don't assume the worst about another editor you say. You continually remove references that are indisputably relevant to the subject and are referenced to their source, how can one assume anything other than what I have? That you simply don't want any modern reference on this subject to appear in the article.

So I am going to include another, a reference to treatment and research being conducted in German hospitals in cancer treatments using an electrotherapy technique incorporating a combination of capacitative diathermy and principles  originally researched by Royal Raymond Rife. I suppose you will vandalise that too, claim it isn't relevant perhaps?

In the end you are simply going to outlive me, unless we can reach some accommodation, as I will just keep putting the references back, unless you can come up with something better as a reason for deleting them that your bald opinion that you don't consider them sufficiently relevant. Are you some sort of self appointed guardian of this article, I'd like to know just where you are coming from? My motive is to disseminate truthful information clearly and truthfully. I won't be vandalising any contribution you make to the information on the subject. So far all you seem to have done is act as a self appointed censor and contributed nothing to the article except to try and destroy it.

— This article SHOULD BE DELETED from Wikipedia. The history of persistent revisions by the likes of Mastcell deleting any references to modern developments in the field of electrotherapy, despite relevant citations and links to published articles in the field and web links pointing to the dramatic development over the past several decades, make the article a farce.

Anybody looking up this subject would be totally misled by the repeated blatant censorship of relevant information that readers have been attempted to include. Just check the history page of the article to see what I mean. Any reference to modern developments, recent publicised research or relevant we blinks has been repeatedly deleted by either Mastcell or automatic bots. Attempts to add directly relevant references and links have been repeatedly undone by this pompous self appointed censor. Truly an enemy of truth and the objective pursuit of knowledge.

I can only conclude that one of the major criticisms of Wikipedia that I have heard before is true. It is biased and unreliable by being manipulated by vested interests, on any subject which is the least controversial or political.

In this case the controversy is a modern and expanding form of medical therapy, electrotherapy, is starting to challenge the vested interests of the American medical establishment in the lucrative field of cancer treatment. The research findings and links which have been repeatedly removed by MastCell, with the blatantly false claim that they are not relevant, to the subject, are links to published research and clinical trials which point to the growing scientifically proven technology of various forms of electrotherapy. A technology which is increasingly seen to offer a cheap, effective and NON PATENTABLE form of treatment for serious diseases which are the basis of the exploitation of the suffering of millions for the fiscal benefit of the so called drug cartel and the "cancer industry", which reaps billions from the continuation of the outmoded and failure ridden treatment of cancer by surgery radiotherapy and chemotherapy.

Wikipedia is a waste of webspace, and will remain so until it rids itself of such problems. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.109.180 (talk) 11:58, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry you feel that way. I think this article should not be deleted, but is in need of serious improvement.  The problem is, that the people who care to add content to this article tend to not properly source their contributions, or follow other WP guidlines.  Mastcell effectively blanked the page of unsourced material in hopes of rebuilding it.  It has not been rebuilt yet.  I agree it is seriously lacking content.  If properly sourced material is added to this list, I will fight to see that it is retained.  unfortunately, the information you provided comes off as a random list of information that appears to provide undue weight to what is known as a fringe concept.  This falls under WP:NOT, WP:FRINGE and WP:WEIGHT.
 * I do not believe Mastcell is censoring this article. I believe he is working to enforce well established guidelines and policies.  If you don't approve of these guidelines, you are welcome to go to their respective discussion pages and propose any change you like.  If concensus agrees with you, your change will be applied.  Again, if you can actually locate any of the sources you supplied, and add content according to the sources and reference the content with those sources, then it can probably go into this article.  If you need help with doing any of that (or anything related to editing WP), let me know and I'll be happy to walk you through it or point you in the right direction.  If instead you think that Wikipedia is a waste of webspace...then I'm afraid you don't understand how "webspace" works, and you're welcome to make your own webpage and put whatever you like on it.  Is it biased?  Yes, sometimes, but if we find those biases, we can work to minimize them.  Is it unreliable?  Again, yes, sometimes.  You should never take any content in Wikipedia to be accurate.  Instead you confirm the reliability of the source the content is taken from.  If there's no source, then there's no garantees.  But that's why people like Mastcell work to remove the unreliable content.  -Verdatum (talk) 17:41, 24 March 2008 (UTC)
 * The patent applications sound a bit familiar, from the Royal Rife article. Patents are not reliable sources of medical information. Multiple "cures" for AIDS have patented; none work. The vested interests argument is interesting, in that I fairly often see editors with a vested interest in a specific unproven therapy promoting it on Wikipedia and railing at the medical/pharmaceutical complex to excuse the lack of decent sources. Charges of "exploiting" the vulnerable also depend quite a bit on where you're standing. It's odd that this therapy is described as "NON PATENTABLE" (sic) at the same time that its claims are being heavily sources to... patents. But these kind of arguments are ultimately unproductive here. If there is a systemic bias which leads to a lack of reliable sources on these topics, then Wikipedia is not the forum to address and correct that problem. This is an enyclopedia, not a place to right Great Wrongs. MastCell Talk 19:33, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

You can see the censorial attitude of MastCell by reading these notes and looking at what he has repeatedly deleted. The person who posted the so called "laundry list" of references was asked where it came from. He quoted the source, but that wasn't good enough. MastCell deleted them all again.

When someone added some references and links to modern research at the Albert Einstein Medical College, citing the paper published by Kaali and others, these too were deleted. With NO JUSTIFICATION. MastCell asks the poster has he read all the references, and asks people to justify every reference and have they read every paper. When references are cited he still deletes the material. When someone posts web links to some modern research in Germany, which link to research and treatment programs being done in the EU, MastCell deletes them too. Nothing is good enough!

The patent references link to patents which give a host of other references on electrotherapy. The Kaali patents refer to an implantable blood electrification device inserted into arteries and they explain the laboratory work done on killing blood borne viruses with small electric currents passed through the blood. Another of the patents referenced referred to an in vitro blood electrification process similar in its mechanics to kidney dialysis. These two examples being patents granted to researches at one of New Yorks premier medical research establishments.

What does MastCell do? Deletes them with no justification, other than some spurious comments about some unspecified patented medical concepts that didn't work. His opinion with no substantiation at all. What does it matter if a particular electrotherapy treatment "works" or not in connection to it being referred to in an article like this. This is an encyclopaedia not a doctors consulting room!! Is there some rule which says that any medical treatment must be approved by the AMA before it can even be mentioned in Wikipedia? If there were to be such then there would be precious little on the subject of medicine in Wikipedia if every article had to be 100% beyond controversy. Some self styled expert such as Mast Cell would deem it unsuitable. There is simply no pleasing MastCell, references has asked for, references were given, articles deleted.

New references unrelated to other aspects of the subject are posted with credible verifiable refernces from prestigious medical research institutes, - deleted by MastCell, no reason given. The so called vandalism of this page has been solely done by Mastcell. Have a look at his personal page to see some insight into his attitude. He mentions Royal Raymond Rife, another article in Wikipedia, where MastCell has been at loggerheads with other editors in a somewhat analogous manner, and has repeatedly vandalised their work there too, because he does not agree with any contentious or radical medical or scientific concept being linked to in WIki. With what justification? Has this self appointed censor some great level of specialised qualification in medical research? I think not.

MastCell shows all the signs of being a paid disinformation agent and disruptor, trying to waste peoples time by demanding meticulous time consuming justification for every point of a posting, only to then go and delete whatever he cares to, no matter what citations or references are quoted. Either that, or we are dealing here with a member of the FLAT EARTH Society, the sort of stubborn minded recalcitrant that would have had Galileo or Copernicus burnt at the stake, because their view of the universe was not the one he held. Well the earth is not flat, and like it or not there are modern developments in the field of electrotherapy which are opening up new treatment possibilities. But you won’t read about then in Wiki because of this problem.

Yes this page needs protection, from MastCell! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.100.85.253 (talk) 07:19, 1 April 2008
 * Please remember to sign your posts with four tildes ~ . Also, please do not surround your posts with "============================================================" as it screws up the wiki formatting.
 * Wikipedia IS an encyclopedia. It is NOT an arbitrary collection of links.  It is NOT a bibilography.  I'm very familiar with the Kaali paper and related patents as I've been over this entire patent discussion when the same content was used on the now deleted page on Blood electrification.  The patent makes unsupported medical claims that do not add anything to an encyclopedic article on the subject unless you can cite a reference that talks about it.  It is a primary source that should be avoided in articles on fringe topics.  Mastcell does not have to justify any of his edits.  It's just probably a good idea.  If he reverts an edit without justification, you're welcome to revert his revert, and request a justification, just follow the Three Revert Rule.  In general his edits appear to be perfectly in-line with Verifiability, Reliable Sources, Original Research, and Be Bold.
 * As far as the allegation of MastCell showing all the signs of being a paid disinformation agent and disruptor....Regardless of their accuracy, such claims made in such a manner only serve to make you seem paranoid and incredulous to the casual reader. I don't mean to claim this to be the case, just stating it is the perception such writing gives off.  According to the policies I've stated above, there is nothing wrong with demanding accuracy and adherance to good policy.  As I've said before, if you don't like the afformentioned policies, you are free to argue them at their respective talk pages in an attempt to revise them to your preference, or you can find someplace else on the Internet to host such content.  Other sites (particularly ones you fund yourself) do not have such strict policies, and many such sites do not allow others to edit content, allowing you to WP:OWN the page as much as you like.
 * I do believe there are modern developments in the field of electrotherapy. I sure wish someone would be kind enough to take the time to properly research them, write about them, and properly cite them in this article.  Unfortunately, no one has bothered to do this, so the page stands as it is.
 * As far as protecting the page from MastCell, you are welcome to report his actions to WP:DRAMA to try and get administrative action taken against him. Please read the page and related links first; I think you'll find they won't take action in this situation.
 * I believe at this point MastCell's edits have been sufficiently defended. I doubt I will respond to any further comments that come off as unsupported ravings unless they actually contain valid arguments.  I rather hope others will follow suit, as it's starting to feel like feeding the trolls.  -Verdatum (talk) 14:29, 1 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not really seeing a lot of substance amongst the personal attacks above, so I'll resist the temptation to respond. I don't really have anything to add to my previous post. MastCell Talk 18:03, 1 April 2008 (UTC)

My dear Verdatum, do you seriously think anybody is going to spend a lot of time to write about this subject once they have read the history of this article? Their efforts would be completely wasted by being destroyed by the likes of MASTCELL. I think some of the people administrating Wiki have only a tenuous grip on reality. People in the real world have not the time to waste on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.113.28.247 (talk) 19:37, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

could use a lot more historical material
It seems the previous historical material was removed for being uncited, but now the article mostly omits mention of anything except Guillaume Duchenne. It'd be useful if someone familiar with the history could write up a cited overview of the 19th and early-20th century phase where electro-therapy was extremely popular. --Delirium (talk) 16:02, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

the history was not so bad but it needs less complicated words —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.134.233.150 (talk) 15:16, 18 October 2008 (UTC)


 * Oudin coil looks like it has relevant content - Invented 1893 and used clinically around 1900. - Rod57 (talk) 02:25, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

Merge of Bio-Electric Stimulation Therapy
This is a stub of a article, based on a single PDF about a single small study sponsored by a company found on the largely defunct website of that company. Nothing to merge in my opinion. Somebody else want to start an AfD? Guyonthesubway (talk) 12:37, 4 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I generally agree. I cleaned up the article so that it might be judged on it's content rather than it's formatting.  Most of the claims appear to be unsupported, with the exception of the summary of a primary source medical study.  I'm too webfiltered at the moment to confidently nominate for AfD, but I expect it would be appropriate to WP:PROD first, and then bring it to AfD (unless it was already proposed and I just missed it in the history).
 * On the other hand, there have been multiple articles that have come and gone on WP regarding the use of microcurrent stimulation, and how it should be considered separate from electrotherapy. This leads me to suspect that writing an article on the usage of low current stimulation isn't impossible, but this doesn't appear to be it.  Further it would be difficult to write something so expansive that it would be better off as a separate article from electrotherapy, since it does appear to be a proper subset of the concept. (BTW, I'm writing this with no recollection of the current state of the electrotherapy article). -Verdatum (talk) 20:15, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

heart defibrillator
As far as I can tell from reading the electrotherapy and defibrillator articles, "electrotherapy" is defined in such a way that it includes heart defibrillation (as well as many other useful and useless treatments).

Alas, all mention of the heart defibrillator -- and a few other treatments that seem to me to fall under the umbrella definition of "electrotherapy" -- have recently been deleted from this article.

Was that an accidental deletion that should be reverted? Or do those treatments somehow not qualify as true electrotherapy, and so the definition in this article needs to be updated to exclude the heart defibrillator? --68.0.124.33 (talk) 22:10, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

removing the merger suggestion?
Since Electromagnetic therapy article no longer exists, then there's nothing to merge with. (There's only a disambiguation page there.) --Dyuku (talk) 21:03, 7 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't quite understand what's going on with this merger proposal. Someone put it in only last month? So I'll wait for comments here before removing it. --Dyuku (talk) 21:11, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

?1820
I would like to know what form of "Medical electricity" was on offer in Penzance, Cornwall around 1820. Robert Dunkin's Trade card is on display at Penlee House, Penzance: DUNKIN & JAMES/ SADDLE AND HARNESS/ Manufacturers/ PENZANCE/ PHILOSOPHICAL INSTRUMENTS/ Made and Repaired/ THERMOMETERS, BAROMETERS,THEODOLITES, ANGLOMETERS, SHIPS COMPASSES &C/ ENGRAVED COPPERPLATE PRINTING/ MEDICAL ELECTRICITY &C.

The Museum dates the Trade Card at "1820s". Vernon White '''. . . Talk''' 23:11, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

Interferential Electrotherapy
This should be merged with Interferential Therapy and renamed Interferential Electrotherapy. This is a widely used and very effective procedure used by chiropractors, sports physicians and therapists.

And boy does it work. I had a frozen shoulder for months, 3 sessions and it is like new.

--APDEF (talk) 11:28, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
 * Do you mean the merged in section should be titled "Interferential Electrotherapy", or that after merging, this electrotherapy article should be moved to Interferential electrotherapy? -Verdatum (talk) 15:14, 18 February 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits
If certain wikians keep removing my additions of the latest therapeutic directions electrotherapy is taking ( building on the work of Nordenstrom and others i haven't mentioned yet dating back to the turn of the century ) this article can hardly progress from the stub it is currently is. Please let it grow. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.247.226 (talk) 18:56, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Please bring Reliable sources (not primary research) that support the additions you want to make. Verbal chat  18:59, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I would also ask that sourced material in the article not be removed, we are supposed to maintain a neutral point of view. -- Nuujinn (talk) 19:03, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Bu i am removing it for that exact reason - it appears to be just hanging in there as a statement out of the blue with no connection to the article in terms of 'flow', using a (weak) source to skew the perception of the therapeutic value of EMT and strictly speaking source is incorrectly used. The statement in my opinion draws a conclusion using the source which is not actually supported. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.247.226 (talk) 19:16, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * It is not a weak source but a WP:MEDRS. It is a meta-review and it's conclusions do not support the use of electrotherapy for bone healing. As one of best quality sources and directly relevant to the topic it deserves to be in the lead. Verbal chat  19:19, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

I disagree strongly - it's a lousy 'meta' review that takes a paltry 11 out of 2,500+ available studies to say not very much about a VERY SPECIFIC SUBGROUP of bone healing - and i quote "CONCLUSIONS: While our pooled analysis does not show a significant impact of electromagnetic stimulation on delayed unions or ununited long-bone fractures, methodological limitations and high between-study heterogeneity leave the impact of electromagnetic stimulation on fracture-healing uncertain." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.247.226 (talk) 19:27, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * Meta-analysys rate the quality of other research according to their criteria (see meta analysis) and reject ones that don't match. They reviewed 2,500+, but found only 11 were of sufficient quality and type. If you want to criticise this study, you need another WP:MEDRS that does that - your own opinion is original research. Verbal chat  19:31, 15 June 2010 (UTC)
 * I don't want to criticize the STUDY just the use of it in wiki as it stands - study does not refer to "bone healing" in general terms as does the wiki entry, and the conclusion doesn't actually say it is "ineffective" which = "works not at all" and the authors remain "uncertain" as they really can't commit to much of a comment. The ad hoc way it is placed in the article suggests it was picked and placed to skew the content. My additions are easily verifiable if you just stop wiping out the links to further reading. Listing the alternate terms in use for EMT is plainly useful - why remove that? ( the links to books in print not selfpublished, the EC has approved the machines for treatment of a seroius disease the article currently fails to mention by name. )  Again it just isn't a quality reference for making that hard and fast wiki statement which jars in the article as a whole - it's still a dreadful piece the last section is a useless mess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.247.226 (talk • contribs) It's obviously a job for a working expert in the field like a traditional encyclopedia so i have invited one to take a look.
 * What matters is reliable sources, as Verbal has pointed out. I agree that the article is poorly written. Feel free to copy edit the text, but please do not remove well sourced material. Also, please be cognizant of the policy found at WP:MEAT. -- Nuujinn (talk) 21:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)

Re: Redirect from Electronic bone growth stimulator
I just looked up electronic bone growth stimulator because my orthopaedic surgeon says after he replaces discs in my spine with bone grafts I'm going to wear an electronic bone growth stimulator two hours a day. There is a redirect from "Electronic bone growth stimulator" to this article, but absolutely no discussion of electronic bone growth stimulators in the article. It looks like all "the good stuff" is back here on the Talk page instead of up front in the article, where it belongs. It looks like the article needs an author to discuss the authorities, instead of someone trying to impose his/ her point of view on unsuspecting readers who expect "just the facts." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.72.136.7 (talk) 02:30, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Clarify the confusing phrase monophasic waveform, direct current.
This section 3.3 Muscle stimulation concludes with These galvanic exercises employed a monophasic waveform, direct current. I tagged the sentence with because the phrase monophasic waveform, direct current is confusing—at least to me. As a more straightforward replacement I suggest direct current repetitive waveform —or— repetitive waveform with a DC offset such that the voltage never drops below zero. I raise this question because 'direct current' is confusing when used to characterize 'monophasic [sic] waveform'; (the normal alternating current (AC) supplied to residences is single phase, which could also be read as mono phase)). In general, electrical distribution is single phase AC, two phase AC. or three phase AC (with two phase being very rare). Even if 'monophasic' has entered medical vocabularies, it should be Wikified for clarity if not replaced. — Neonorange (talk to Phil) (he, him) 03:59, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * The term phase in the medical field has nothing to do with electrical phase. It refers to something that is episodic, like a recurring disease or doses of a drug.  In this case, it refers to the number of pulses of shock administered (apparently biphasic is better than monophasic in defibrilators).  On direct current, the term means flowing in one direction, not that the current is steady.  This is exactly the same as its usage in electrical engineering.  A half-wave rectifier has a DC output, but it is anything but constant with time. SpinningSpark 16:18, 16 August 2021 (UTC)