Wikipedia

Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)/Archive 2

< Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)
Latest comment: 10 years ago by Cooper-42 in topic nomination for artilces of deletion
Archive 1 Archive 2

Requested move (first attempt)

Latest comment: 15 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) → Electromagnetic therapy, thus reverting the change that was opposed above. 199.125.109.99 (talk) 19:01, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

  • Oppose for the multiple reasons given by myself and 2/0 above. Verbal chat 22:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Clearly the alternative medicine form should be distinquished from mainstream therapies. I.e. Should heat lammps be in here? What about x-rays? the Gamma Knife? All forms of 'electromagnetic' therapies. (I'm going to ignore the second version of the same question. There's no need to ask the question twice) Guyonthesubway (talk) 14:57, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Requested move

Latest comment: 15 years ago22 comments9 people in discussion
The following is a closed discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was No move Parsecboy (talk) 21:27, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine) → Electromagnetic therapy — Clear violation of Wikipedia rules as discussed by myself and agreed to by another editor (ie.: see point number 9). Disruptive editor keeps moving page dispite violation and lack of concensus. (Please see Wikipedia:Disrupt#Dealing_with_disruptive_editors) — CyclePat (talk) 03:38, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Oppose per the arguments based on correct interpretation of policy and guidelines in the discussion above which had the support of several editors and the apparent consensus (ie, not Cyclepat's misinterpretations of NPOV and CFORK, which are not in conflict with this article and its current name.) What was wrong with the identical section above? Verbal chat 09:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose per the above arguments, it should be made clear that this falls within alternative medicine. YeshuaDavid (talk) 16:26, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed it should... if it actually did. Find the reliable and verifiable references and maybe we could be off to a good start. --CyclePat (talk) 03:22, 19 May 2009 (UTC)


  • Oppose Came here via NPOV noticeboard - seems blatantly clear to me that there are two distinct topics which could easily be confused. As stated above: "parentheses are generally only used for disambiguation" and this is an entirely appropriate use of parenthesis. NB: I can't see how WP:CFORK is in any way relevant to this discussion.--Jaymax (talk) 00:36, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Note: Jaymax only has about 170 edits. --CyclePat (talk) 05:27, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
And is not an WP:SPA, hence that is irrelevent. Please strike. Verbal chat 09:57, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
Umm, no let it stand. Let others decide how that Note: affects CyclePat's relevance here or elsewhere--Jaymax (talk) 09:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose Came here via Wikipedia:Requests for moving. As per above arguments, and also, seeing as there is not substantial scientific proof of electromagnetic therapy actually working, it should not be confused with electrotherapy, as that would be disinformation. It is perfectly NPOV. 나비Fly Talk/Contributions 00:46, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
The Cochrane Library states that PEMF and magnet therapy is electrotherapy. (previous cited but removed from the article by Verbal) Interesting POV from a reputable source if you ask me. Does that make the Cochrane Library an institute that promotes "disinformation"? How do you suggest we add this into the article? --CyclePat (talk) 03:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I should have said "alternative electromagnetic therapy." If PEMF works, as you say, why not add it to the electrotherapy article? If you have good references then it should be able to stay there. 나비Fly Talk/Contributions 06:19, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Support The electrotherapy article seems to indicate that the term "electromagnetic therapy" is used only for alternative medicine related treatment. If "electromagnetic therapy" refers only to the alternative treatment and not electrotherapy, there is no need to disambiguate "electromagnetic therapy". --Dodo bird (talk) 14:28, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Oppose The topics are distinct (pretty much nobody confuses electroconvulsive therapy with radionics), but the names are sometimes used interchangeably by different sources, hence the need to disambiguate. I certainly do agree, though, that both of these articles need a fair bit of work to define and explain their respective topics. - 2/0 (cont.) 17:02, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Comment Articles should maybe be merged, or discussed together in an electromagnetic therapy parent article. Currently the article says there is no relationship between electromagnetic therapy and electrotherapy [1], but this is not supported by the ACS source used and is confusing because, as CyclePat says, electromagnetic therapy has been used to refer to apparently mainstream treatments like PEMF. The magnet therapy exemplifies the difficulties in broadly painting articles as "alt med and completely unsupported by evidence", since it has sources which say that magnets do have an effect. II | (t - c) 20:13, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I can see merit in a general parent article (or just disambiguation) and different articles for different (significant) electro-magnetic therapy modes - for example, there is not a lot of connection between muscle therapy and wound therapy, (as per the current electrotherapy article) except some history and the applied use of electric current. It would be relatively straight forward to link from a 'parent' article to those, and a PEMF article(?), and another 'alternative' uses article. But it's important to distinguish (in article) between (supposed or applied) electrical (electrothereputic) applications, and (supposed or applied) electromagnetic applications. As I understand it - the physics involves a whole additional dimension - and it would be really poor to neglect that critical fact.--Jaymax (talk) 10:47, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:
Comment: Euh! No... There was no consensus to move this page in the first place. User Verbal moved the page and then discussion stop because of a breakdown in communication. This is why I've asked for this page to be put back to its original state or that we discuss the change. There is no evidence in all the above "votes" (which oppose returning the article back to "Electromagnetic therapy") to argue against the points I have brought forward regarding WP:NPOV. In fact, user:Verbal has even taken the liberty to create the article on Electromagnetic therapy and use it as some sort of disambiguation page, which simply proves my point that we are making a POV Fork here. What the heck is up with that... all we've done now is moved the history and the work of one article for "no reason". But nevertheless, let me digress into specifics to help everyone better understand my meandering thoughts so you can perhaps try and understand or maybe find a fallacy in my logic. There are medical devices out there which must follow Industry Canada and Health Canada's regulation. EMF therapy may have its (alternative medicine) but it also has its regular practice and peer-reviewed "medical" studies. How do you suggest these studies be included within an article that uses something as contentious as alternative therapy in its title? Ex., how do you add bone healing? How would you suggest adding microwave cancer therapy which is currently discussed within the article as a form of EMFT, but, I believe, because we want to push a POV towards alternative medicine, it no longer really belong in the article? Also what is alternative therapy? That article has trouble defining what the term means. Let's see... somehow... all the information about bone healing and medical procedures has been removed from the article. The information regarding "alternative therapy", more specifically, reference 1 and 2 is not even verifiable. Now some people want to make a consensus that this is just about alternative medicine... but we can't even cite me one reliable source that says that Electromagnetic therapy is an alternative medicine. Anyways, that aside, anyone care to explain what exactly is misinterpreted in my analysis of NPOV? Because, as it stands, you can get 400 people to come in and say... "make it alternative therapy", but that still won't solve the problem, because the route of the problem has to deal with our conflict in between the interpretation of WP:NPOV rules. So a careful refutation in the form of an analysis regarding NPOV would be appreciated regarding this matter. Thank you. --CyclePat (talk) 22:50, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
  • Question: "Alternative therapy" is a term used by the More Cancer Center.[2] They specify, but only in the title and on the side bar as "alternative medicine" that it is an alternative therapy. They explain in their appendix a bit more about alternative therapy. In fact they categorize Electromagnetic therapy, along with Reiki, Therapeutic Touch and Qi gong, under Energy therapy. Should I go and suggest that energy therapy now be called Energy therapy (alternative medicine) because of this? Obviously no! (for more reason than just this) Anyways, this is a Point-of-view from a Medical Center that specialized in treating Cancer. Obviously, their point of view will be to consider this as an alternative therapy. Their point-of-view, though important for the articles content, is still quite minor in relation to the 10 folds of information that exist out there regarding "Electromagnetism as a therapy (without the alternative bias)". (And might I add to that, the More Cancer’s website is not even peer-reviewed). Is there a “peer reviewed” document that says “this is alternative therapy”? If so, I think it’s probably a minority view point.... otherwise we should have at least 3 references. Here's an analogy: It's like pretending I'm the Wart Specialist Center. I explain that to treat warts you need to use liquid nitrogen or acid. But "an alternative therapy" could be "duck tape". Clearly, alternative therapy in this case is in reference to the treatment of Cancer. Reference 1 and reference 2 (as discussed above) have no verifiable information which mentions that EMFT is "alternative". In fact I would go as far to say that most of the PUB-med, peer-reviewed studies don't mention this as being alternative. I believe most PUB-med article, simply said, consider EMFT as a form of treatment for XYZ conditions throughout their tests. --CyclePat (talk) 04:17, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Recent revert: The last 2 to 3 weeks have seen some edit attempts to add information to this article. The article ignores the fact that EMF therapy (EMFT) is referenced in several articles as a form of therapy to cure bones fractures or other illness. Unless you wish to refer to the period where EMFT was used as a form of alternative therapy for the early days or some sort of minor POV.... Anyways, there is no consensus for the current title and it was moved very sneakily out of process. I believe the title should be moved back to where it was. This reminds me of the whole out-of-process where Flag of Ireland was improperly moved to Flag of Republic of Ireland a while back. I would not encourage edit warring, but there is simply no consensus for this move.
Develepoment of the article has ensued to try and resolve this issue and better define the term. As the ACS article is currently often used and seems to have some sort of "Godly" or, more politely, "consenual" approval, I've decided to use it. It does not specifically references EMFT as alternative medicine. Why is it that the same article (ACS) can be considered controversial and that somehow... we're now removing information from our Wikipedia article which cites this information? Anyways, the ACS article references EMFT as being used for bone growth therapy. I see no reason to remove this information from the article. Just as I see no reason to remove the information regarding the microwave sublimation which is currently accepted in the article. --CyclePat (talk) 02:31, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Observation: Let's try and count and see how many times the ACS and More Cancer Therapy Center are referenced in this article? I don't think you'll find one paragraph or section that doesn't use this reference. There is a big problem with this. Wikipedia is promoting the POV of Cancer Institutes. --CyclePat (talk) 02:41, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Am I having this conversation with myself? What the hell happened to building concensus? Does anyone have a constructive comments. Anyways, why are we removing perfectly well referenced material which pertains to EMFT as a therapy? Where does this information go now? Why does it feal like you're avoiding discussing this important dilema and simply? --CyclePat (talk) 02:47, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
Funny, I just took a look at what the article looked like back in July 2007... it even had tables... http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)&oldid=144556749. And here's how the article was delimitated back when I started it in September 2006. It said "Electromagnetic Therapy is a noninvasive, drug-free form of treatment which applies electromagnetic energy to the body."[3]. The first occurance of alternative therapy (again... unproperly referenced) occured Oct 21 2006.[4]
I've changed the tone of a few of my afformentioned comments. I'm open for personal comments on my user talk page, some of which have already began regarding this discussion. If you feal uncomfortable with the talk page please feel free to email your concerns via Wikipedia email system. --CyclePat (talk) 15:03, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Please concider this mediation

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2009-05-22/Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). --CyclePat (talk) 05:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

See also

Latest comment: 15 years ago15 comments5 people in discussion

The following links are proposed for addition because they are closely related to EMFT or as described thereafter:

Nuclear medicine 


--CyclePat (talk) 02:59, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'll bite - lets just take the first one on the list Proton therapy - How does this come even remotely closely related to EMFT? Even without restricting the connection to something vaguely medical? (which I'd think it should be to justify inclusion) --Jaymax (talk) 04:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
From the other side, ultrasound?? Verbal chat 07:05, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
We've discussed ultrasound therapy. I think it's clear that it is not an EMF (as also alluded in the above comment "... though sound is not EMF... interesting article" I find it interesting because of "wave lenght" similarities and because it technically transfers or applies a form of "energy therapy". --CyclePat (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Suggest deleting Novatrans.... no idea what it has to do with this article, though. I would be against linking most of these. Certainly anything with Ultrasound has nothing to do with this. Magnet therapy has nothing to do with this article. Ditto with proton therapy. I would think a quick read of Electromagnetic_radiation should give a quick -no- to many of the proposed topics. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
On that thought then perhaps we could explore the article "electromagnetic radiation". It is stated a little further "Generally, EM radiation is classified by wavelength into electrical energy, radio, microwave, infrared, the visible region we perceive as light, ultraviolet, X-rays and gamma rays." How about we start with those that are enumarated (hence, likely to be less controversial). --CyclePat (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Proton therapy

Looking at the etymology of the word Proton, via etymonline.com, doesn't really help in this case. So let's look at the definition from the article itself. It describes Proton therapy as "a type of external beam radiotherapy." It also indicates the use of Protons. The definition we have for Proton at Wikipedia "is is a subatomic particle with an electric charge of +1 elementary charge." But back to the external beam radiotherapy. "The patient sits or lies on a couch and an external source of radiation is pointed at a particular part of the body." EMFs are described as a form of radiation. Anyways, the radiotherapy article talks about, photons, and Electron therapy. Per the article Electron, it is stated "Electrons play an essential role in many physical phenomena, such as electricity, magnetism, thermal conductivity, and optics. A moving electron generates a magnetic field and is deflected by external magnetic fields. Per the magnetic field article, "In special relativity, the electric field and magnetic field are two interrelated aspects of a single object, called the electromagnetic field. Which in turn says "The electromagnetic field is a physical field produced by electrically charged objects." ie. reference to the proton and electron. Might I point out the section of that article which compares some conventional medicaly procedures, particularly X-rays (which I believe fall in the EMF chart) Please see Proton_therapy#Comparison_with_conventional_x-ray_radiotherapy. In short, a Proton has a relationship with EMFs. As for a secondary sources... well I haven't found any yet which make a correlation. But, I trust you understand my correlation with EMFT. This is also different then conventional drug medicine which has a chemical reaction in the body and might have some type of Alpha, Beta blockers, which could be infered as some sort of tiny, yet measurable electromagnetic (chemical) reaction. What we are talking about is using the EMF spectrum, wheter it be ionizing or non ionizing radiation. --CyclePat (talk) 16:48, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

well you have found a lot of words that kinda sound like 'Electromagnetic' and 'therapy'. However I see nothing here to support inclusion of Proton Therapy in the article. Guyonthesubway (talk) 16:55, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Indeed, without a secondary source it is difficult to add such information to the article "per see". But it does help frame the context of EMFT and how it can be interpreted in a broader "spectrum" (pun intended). This broad spectrum, EMFs, I believe should be discussed on what and what doesn't fall within EMFT, and particularly... why it does or doesn't. I believe the above analysis is simply to help us frame the context on what we should perhaps look into finding regarding reliable sources. Nevertheless, if you indicate to me that there is a flaw in my logic (which one reason I'm asking the question), then perhaps then we shouldn't explore proton therapy.
Well.. its not electromagnetic. So, no we shouldn't. Any more than we should examine cheese within the context of balconies and steam boilers because all can be found in your house, and all eventually melt. Guyonthesubway (talk) 17:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay second try. I was thinking of concededing... I do concede that the current link of EMF and Protons is probably just as ambiguous as the link between cheese and the cat (not forgetting the mouse inbetween somewhere). I still however believe there is a link because the proton has an "energy charge". The proton is simply the means of delivery. For example, the WHO indicates that "Electromagnetic waves are carried by particles called quanta."[5] Further it is stated:
"Some electromagnetic waves carry so much energy per quantum that they have the ability to break bonds between molecules. In the electromagnetic spectrum, gamma rays given off by radioactive materials, cosmic rays and X-rays carry this property and are called 'ionizing radiation'. Fields whose quanta are insufficient to break molecular bonds are called 'non-ionizing radiation'. Man-made sources of electromagnetic fields that form a major part of industrialized life - electricity, microwaves and radiofrequency fields – are found at the relatively long wavelength and low frequency end of the electromagnetic spectrum and their quanta are unable to break chemical bonds."
Quanto refers also to photon. Anyways, I always though an EMF is created when a charge partical moves. Protons have a charge, hence the therapy, or bombardement of Protons could be considered a type of EMF radiation. Picture this, it's like a magnet wich always has a field around it. Protons create an EM field but it is the opposite directions compared to the EM field of an electrons. Conventional EMF therapy would have us believe the we commonly use electrons (or tiny sized magnets) or electrical current running through a wire and pulsed (PEMF) and via induction. But Proton therapy involves direct bombardement sort of like electrotherapy (ie.: TENS machine). One reason for this is because "We don't normally hear of EM fields of protons as there aren't any "conductors of protons""[6] Anyways, back to the magnet example, I like to think of electromagnetic therapy as an atomic version of magnet therapy. (ie.: take a strong magnet and pass it many times over an area and you have something similar to a moving magnetic field such as those produced by PEMFs, or electrons flowing in a wire, or proton bombardement) The question you need to ask is, What must vibrate to produce an electromagnetic wave?[7] A. electrons B. electric charges C. magnetic fields D. radiant energy The answer: It's B. Electric charges. An proton has a positve charge of 1 electric charge, which is the exacte opposite of an electron charge of 1 negative charge or 1.6x10 -19 coulombs. (See www.ehow.com/video_4766666_why-does-proton-have-charge.html) I think it is important to distinguish the difference between particules which could explain X-rays. It also important to distinguist between EM generated by Electric fields, Magnetic fields, How do static fields differ from time-varying fields, etc... as discussed in the WHO article. Anyways, question again, isn't proton bombardement that not just some sort of electron bombardement? I'll need to look into this if we are to agree to put it in. Hence, I will concede that Protons are not an EMF but that they carry an EMF. Hence the distinction and why I would agree it doesn't seem to quite have its place. --CyclePat (talk) 20:08, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

If you get right down to it, beating a dead horse with a stick is electromagnetic therapy. The horse-stick interaction is at its root electromagnetic, as it is ultimately repulsion of electrons which keeps the one from passing through the other. Further, as the charged particles comprising the stick translate through the arc of the swing they, like any charged particle undergoing acceleration, will emit electromagnetic radiation. Some of this radiation will impinge on the horse, where it will warm the carcass and thus hasten its decomposition.
Clearly, we should restrict ourselves to the more relevant topics. Perhaps there is a reliable source somewhere describing certain topics as related to certain others? - 2/0 (cont.) 20:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Or alternately, as CyclePat puts it "What we are talking about is using the EMF spectrum, whether it be ionizing or non ionizing radiation." - or indeed, the EM forces at work which control the movement of the surgeon's scalpel perhaps - that is just as related to PEMF - so we should link to that. CyclePat, you alluded in a blatant ad hominem manner above about my low edit volume. That's in part because, for myself, I like to be confident that I know enough to be adding value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jaymax (talk • contribs) 03:50, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Jaymax, I think by sheer volume of edits, CyclePat is clearly a superior editor than you. Guyonthesubway (talk) 11:40, 27 May 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, Jaymax, but when it comes to "votes" these are things which are considered by Wikipedians when they weight in on their decision. This applies in particularly for votes and an excellent example can be found if ever you get the privilege of being nominated and going through administrator's recruiting process. Just to be clear: was there any sarcasm in you above comment when you talked about the relationship of EM forces and a surgeon's scalpel? (It's just because, with the prior comment this could be miss-interpreted). I think, regarding telemetry surgery... (or surgery where the doctor can be in another room, and use EM "communication" to make a robot arm move and perform a surgery, would be an interesting POV to allude to in the article but most likely as a "see also", or "brief statment". For some reason, at first glance, it appears to be off topic, but then when you look at it... it isn't. Quite a paradox... no mater the case, EMFT, if it did talk about it should reference to the main article. --CyclePat (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

LMAO, I guess they would call it "Wacky the dead horse stick therapy". Actually, I also though that would be considered Physical therapy... even though some might argue it could be a form of psychotherapy. Humm.... to many POVs to classify. Maybe this example could be translated into the difficulty we are currently having? Anyways, what if we do find a reliable source somewhere describing certain topics as related to certain others? Will this help? I think it would. Which why I agreed with the proposal that we look into the electromagnetic radiation article for "key words" and start with those. (Maybe put asside y above extensive list and focus on the main ones such as x-ray, microwave, etc.). Also, I'm not 100% sure, but I think the WHO article I cited on this talk page mentioned those types of EMFs and how it can be consider as being a type of EMFT. Let me see what I can conjure! --CyclePat (talk) 21:26, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Fetal magnetocardiography

Latest comment: 14 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"Fetal magnetocardiography involves the acquisition and interpretation of the magnetic field near the maternal abdomen due to the electrical activity of the fetal heart. A fetal magnetocardiogram (MCG) can be recorded reliably from the 20th week of gestation onward. Fetal magnetocardiography is a truly non-invasive technique in which the body is not even touched. It can be used to classify arrhythmias and to diagnose certain congenital heart defects. Hence, it may help to provide optimum care for the patient. However, until now, fetal MCGs have mainly been measured in research laboratories. Apparently, the application of fetal magnetocardiography in a clinical setting is hampered by the fact that the measuring instrument and its exploitation are still rather expensive and skilled personnel is needed to carry out the measurements. However, it is expected that these problems will be overcome in the near future." (Ref.: Advances In Electromagnetic Fields In Living Systems: Volume 4. p.2)

Suggestions would be greatly appreciate on how we could include this information within the article. --CyclePat (talk) 05:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Those buggers sure do look neat - a big ol' cannon into which the bulge is inserted, thermally insulated from whatever cryogen keeps the superconductors from quenching (presumably LN2, but there might be a good reason to use helium) but still bringing the all those little Josephson junction loops close enough that even after attenuation by messy biological systems tiny fluctuations in current can be detected. Mind you, it is neither a therapy nor an alternative medicine, but still way cool. I wonder if a category tree would organize where your thoughts have been going lately, as these suggestions seem a bit disjoint in their physical principles, uses, and historical development. - 2/0 (cont.) 07:10, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Therapy vs. monitoring: If it's anything like the mass spectrometer, and not the one defunct one at my local (National) Science and Tech museum, or the other one at the National research council, I'm jealous. It kind of makes me wonder how the technology could be used for some secret espionage. On computers of course. For example, a spy or PI in another room could monitor your every action and not with some virus. They could see what's your computer monitor. This is through the electromagnetic fields. And for that matter, any kind of field, can be instantly drawn out on the computer. Detecting the location of the monitor cable would probably be as simple as finding a wireless network (specially once you know the frequency range) but, you could use X-ray machine to locate and scan the room to pin-point the exact location (or if you know where the device is, then just point your detector in that direction). Changes in your computer monitor's EM fields can hence be sensed by this device. Almost like how you measure amperage with a clamp ammeter via the EMFs. (Here's a link to a business that sells some) Actually this website I just founds talks about how you can measure EMF from every keyboard stroke.[8] It says "This radiation can be captured and decoded." Then using such a device to monitor, pun intended, the monitor's EMF fields or every keystroke now doesn't seem that far off from "monitoring" our own biological responses. Where is the line draw between monitoring (pun intended again), such as MRIs, and therapy? Does it have to involve an "intervention" of some sort? I digress, and concede, a computer virus seems like an easier way to monitor someones computer activity but I'm sure you understand and how this is just pretty darn cool. --CyclePat (talk) 03:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
P.s.: Isn't funny how clamp meter directs to Electrophysiology. Particularly, Electrophysiology#Current_clamp. --CyclePat (talk) 03:47, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

General Interest : addition and sources

Latest comment: 15 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

For another articles:

— Preceding unsigned comment added by CyclePat (talk • contribs) 06:30, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

CyclePat's recent changes

Latest comment: 14 years ago6 comments2 people in discussion

I have reverted CyclePats recent changes, which were also reverted by another editor, as they add an unjustified further reading section (please feel free to justify it here), add a seemingly irrelevant paragraph, and incorrectly replaces "such as" by "or". It also included "The reason this article discusses imaging is because it is hypothesized that the future of magnetic fields and pain therapy lies" which is both self-referential and violates WP:CRYSTAL. Please justify your changes, CyclePat, as they are so often contentious, before you make them (as you have been asked) Verbal chat 18:03, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

1) No other editor reverted my recent change. Hence, you nave not reverted a change that was also revert by another editor. You have simply revert my changes.
2) A further reading section is commonly used at wikipedia. (See even the article physics which has it's own content fork for physics (further reading)).
3) The "Hypothezised future of electromagnetic therapy" is a valid POV. It comes from a creditable source and explains the current dillema of medical vs. non-medical. (see also point 5)
4) Removal of the term "Such as" is used to clearly explain that PEMF is not electromagnetic therapy but is a form of EMFT. Also, the current references in that sentence do not explain or show a link of electromagnetic therapy "being" PEMF. Hence the first sentence should either not specifically make a link with "PEMF" and the content should be removed or it should make a link, but as per Wikipedia's rules of WP:OR, within the form of an accepted synthesis by using the term "such as".- but not the term "or".
5) What is self referential about that sentence? We can rephrase... ie. "it is hypothezised that the future of magnetic fields and pain therapy lies..." hence removing the argumentative discussion about the article. And Wp:Crystal does not apply. Take for example article List_of_particles, Bubble fusion, Universal constructor, and I'm sure many more... etc... all those examples are based on hypothesised concepts. You'll have to explain in better detail why you think it violates Wp:Crystal
6) You removed information on melatonin. Quite a valid EMF interation with mammals. --CyclePat (talk) 18:22, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
OilFilth reverted your recent edits. 2 is fine, but those sections need to be justified, especially if challenged. Could you justify the book you want included? 3, per WP:CRYSTAL and self reference it isn't valid. 4, if "or" is correct then PEMF should just not be mentioned at all. 5, see 3. 6, Find an WP:RS that links it to electromagnetic therapy and justify it below. Verbal chat 18:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes! I noticed he reverted my addition of the term Quantum electrodynamics within the "see also". That edit is old because it is completely unrelated to our current discussion. It is somehow alluded in your previous remark that this has a relationship with our current content dispute, but in fact, it has nothing to do because I agree with its removal. In fact I find the causal link is difficult for the average reader to make. So that point is pretty much moot unless of course you wish to have this item put back within the article. Moving on then to # 2). One reason I believe the book "Advances In Electromagnetic Fields In Living Systems: Volume 4" is of interest of further reading is by simply taking a look at the index. (actually all the volumes now that I think about it, would be good for inclusion)... but by example here is what the index says for the term:
electromagnetic pain therapy, 155–182 (Must be included within this article)
electroencephalography and, 169, 178 (Debatable)
ELF MFs and, 170–171. See also extremely low (Must be include within this article)
frequency magnetic fields (Must be include within this article)
entrainment hypothesis, 178 (Not sure?)
future directions, 179–181 (Should be included in this article but debatable per our current discussion of Crystal)
historical use of magnetic fields for, 156–157 (Must be included in this article)
in humans, 168–170 (Must be include within this article)
image-guided, 181 (debatable)
light-effects, 174–175, 177–179 (Should be included)
magnetoencephalography and, 178 (debatable)
mechanisms of, 171–179 (Must be include within this article... ie.: what machines are used?)
pulsed magnetic fields, 166–168 (ie.: PEMF) (Must be include within this article... maybe not in the first sentence. So I think we agree to remove it from the first sentence and placed in the body. (maybe eventually well figure out how to put it in the lead section))
pulsed waves, 177 (Must be include within this article)
Anyways the above is an extra of the book and can guide us in building and understanding EMFT.
research program objectives, 157–158 (Not sure?? Maybe a general perspective of what research has been done?)
Rollman study, 169 (Not sure what this is and the relation)
sinusoidal waves, 176–177, 179 (Not sure)
Vallbona study, 169 (Not sure)
zero magnetic environments and, 164–166 (Must be include within this article... ie. Space travel, and therapy)
See also calcium ions (not sure)
Anyways, I hope the above is sufficient explanation. But just in case, James Lin, has written several volumes extensively covering EMFT. A quick glance at googles version of volume #2 - Popular passages, shows that he is cited by more many reputable sources: I cite but a few:
  • University of Texas Health Science Center, 7703 Floyd Curl Drive, San Antonio, TX 78284, USA.‎ Page 1 Appears in 315 books from 1869-2008
  • Quantitative and qualitative studies of chemical transformation of cloned C3H mouse embryo cells sensitive to postconfluence inhibition of cell division. Cancer Res. 33: 3239-3249(1973) 40. Reznikoff, CA, Brankow, DW, and Heidelberger, C., Establishment and characterization of a cloned line of C3H mouse embryo cells sensitive to postconfluence inhibition of division.‎ Page 201 (Appears in 107 books from 1881-2007)
  • Yonish-Rouach, E., Resnitzky, D., Lotem, J., Sachs, L., Kimchi, A., and Oren, M. (1991) Wild-type p53 induces apoptosis of myeloid leukaemic cells that is inhibited by interleukin-6. Nature. 352, 345-347.‎ Page 204 (Appears in 57 books from 1977-2008)
  • JV, et al. Comparison of in vivo tissue temperature profile and lesion geometry for radiofrequency ablation with a saline-irrigated electrode versus temperature control in a canine thigh muscle preparation.‎ Page 228 (Appears in 21 books from 1994-2008)
  • The ocular effects of microwaves on hypothermic rabbits: a study of microwave cataractogenic mechanisms.‎ Page 160 (Appears in 21 books from 1970-1996)
Finally, I particularly enjoy his introduction which says :
"In the last two decades, research on the biological effects and health implications of electromagnetic fields not only has expanded, but also has become a subject of a public concern and private debate, worldwide. This series is aimed at bringing together contemporary advances in key areas of research and scholarship. Very seldom can advances be totally divorced from past accomplishments. Accordingly, this premier volume begins with a chapter that discusses, briefly, contributions made by some of the early investigators on the interaction of electromagnetic fields with living systems. The interaction of radiofrequency (RF) electromagnetic fields with the central nervous system has been a subject of considerable contemporary interest, since the nervous system integrates and regulates an organism’s response to its environment. The chapter that follows summarizes the known effects of RF radiation on the central nervous system and includes a review of interaction of RF exposure with psychoactive drugs on animals. The latter has become one of the most intriguing research subjects with profound implications for health effects and safety protection."
Anyways, I digress with a final inference on my behalf that, Electromagnetic fields must be used to within electromagnetic therapy (EMFT). If you do not have an electromagnetic fields it is not EMFT. I really like what he says right after on page vi (second paragraph) "In general, the interaction of electromagnetic fields andwaves with biological systems is frequency-dependent."
(ie.: Melatonin, ie. Light). #3) or 5) Similarly, As for the crystal ball I think it would help our situation if we got a third opinion, because, yes, I concede that it does seem to meet the definition, but, I find it highly suspicious that at Wikipedia we can discuss, certain hypothesized theories (see above examples I listed), and many other theories but not this one. In fact, if you take a look at the rule you are citing, since you didn't really precise a section(you highlighted the debate towards pt #3 from Crystal ball), you will however notice that WP:CRYSTAL in general says :
"It is appropriate to report discussion and arguments about the prospects for success of future proposals and projects or whether some development will occur, if discussion is properly referenced."
A little of a dilema. Which again, is why I would for us to get a third opinion on this. Thank you.
Finally I particularly enjoyed his acknowledgment of the National Science Foundation, Office of Naval Research, and the National Institutes of Health, for their support in his research.
I can't help but resist with another quote :
"The first two chapters of the book review two of the most significant topics that have played pivotal roles in raising and addressing the question of whether extremely low frequency (ELF) electric and magnetic fields can affect the development of cancer. Chapter 1 scrutinizes the connection between exposure to ELF electric and magnetic fields and melatonin synthesis or utilization. It examines data that have been reported to indicate that exposure of animals to ELF fields reduces the ability of these animals to produce this hormone. And it discusses the significance of the findings relative to the incidence of cancer in humans exposed to ELF fields. The large number of epidemiological reports that focus on cancer and its potential association with ELF exposure are evaluated in Chapter 2. It provides a strength evaluation for the available evidence at this time and a discussion on the unique challenges that face epidemiological studies of ELF exposure." --CyclePat (talk) 02:33, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
p.s.: Volume 4 also has two chapters dealing with mechanisms of interaction and therapeutic applications of biomedical applications of electromagnetic fields, ranging in frequency from quasistatic to the optical regime. Though the tone is general scientific, in that it describes it as effects on the body, this is quite relevant to understanding the term "therapy" --CyclePat (talk) 02:57, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
Please also consider this book. http://books.google.ca/books?id=XAheClw1GsgC&printsec=frontcover#PPA5,M1 --CyclePat (talk) 05:38, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I can't work with this

Latest comment: 14 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

In the early 1900s a "variety of electrotherapeutic devices where used"... It's unconceivable that the POV of this article Focus on EMF devices only and those that are therapeutic. It makes it imposible to develop the history of this article. Specifically, I can not accept the removal of microwave, bone therapy, and other medically accepted EMFT procedures, which where previously considered quackery. This is part of our history. You can't change the fact that we are skeptical, or where skeptical about these devices which, some of them, are now medical procedures. "Guyonthesubway" says "non-related material"... My eye! It's quite related and he knows it. Building a strawman to take it down is not nice and lacks good spirit. Because of this I'm going to work on merging the content of this article into the broader more encompassing term of bioelectromagnetics which covers medical procedures, ET, and as well as EMFT, PEMF, and many other forms of energy therapy. This will ensure a broader, and more encompassing article. Feel free to do what you want here, ie. revert my recent edits, which are somewhat tenatious in nature to try and prove a point. Sorry. --CyclePat (talk) 16:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Please propose the changes you wish to make, on this page, with a short reason. If you wish to make multiple changes list them separately (ie, lead changes, Use section changes). Thanks, Verbal chat 19:19, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Informal Mediation

Latest comment: 14 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

Hi guys. I'll be your mediator from MEDCAB. I have some information on the talk page that I wish for you to look at first before we begin, after that we can get started :). You can find it in the mediator notes section. Renaissancee (talk) 23:55, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't see any need for mediation. Cyclepat's complaint about moving the article was solved by an RfC. Verbal chat 06:59, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
At one point in time it felt like Verbal and I where no longer communicating. That was one reason I had requested mediation. Another reason was because of the article merger. As I read back my original complaint and as I look back at my recent edits, regarding how I plan to edit bioelectromagnetics (which is essentially a broader term for EMFT) and eventually merge the content of this article into it, I still find it difficult to edit this article. We have narrowed the scope of EMFT way to much. to the point that, if you look at it we are now trying to make to different and distinc histories. But that's not possible, because inherently, EMFT has a very close link with ET and bioelectromagnetics. Also the "alternative therapy" (though it has it's place) is a POV (most likely a minor one) which is not well referenced.(as discussed at the request for mediation and in some of the above conversations we never really concluded). Though, I'm glad we're able to communicate a bit better, I think it would be opportunistic of us to take advantage of user:Renaissancee's help to discuss a few of the problem we may be having here. (It's informal mediation, so if we decide afterwards we could continue on as we're trying right now. ie.: I still need to figure out how to present a few other ideas.) I also gringe at the thought that Verbal is correct is saying it's alternative therapy, even though, when you look at the history of bioelectromagnetics, it encompasses the idea of medical practices and some now, widely accepted, medical practices. . etc... etc... I must concede though: I was a little surprised to get a response for the mediation. --CyclePat (talk) 20:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Close Mediation Case. Case closed, near all or most answers where answered in your RfC if I read your posts right? Cycle your post hints to wanting a Mediation case, so I'm not going to close it yet. I want your two supports below this before I close it. Thanks! Renaissancee (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, the RfC answered the question, and it was confusion on Cyclepat's part. Sorry that your time has been wasted, I'd forgotten he started a case and after the RfC I thought it was moot. Verbal chat 08:07, 12 June 2009 (UTC)
That RFC left me with many more questions and a sense that consensus is a difficult thing. ie. As you referred to "Alt med and medicine are different topics"... what does that have to do with electromagnetic therapy. I think alternative therapy might link to to EMFT, but not the opposite. (Just look at the conversation we had at the talk page for pain management). I can't say this more then enough, EMFT is considered an alternative therapy for "Cancer". In the regular world it's actually used everyday... microwave, x-ray, proton therapy, etc. all have different names for this which fall under the category of bioelectromagnetics. As I continue to work on the history section of the article "bioelectromagnetics" you will eventually see this (if not already - ie.: scanning, diagnosis and treatment encompasses bioelectromagnetics). I do still question the RFC and the unanswered questions. Do we need to explore these? Because, as I've indicate above, it feels as though "I can no longer work at this article". The scope is so narrow that it feels impossible to develop the history. The reason it's impossible is because there is inherently a link of "alternative medicine" with all the other forms of EMFT. Picking and choosing the ones that apply to EMFT (altern. med.) only is wrong. It's wrong, as I've indicated per reference to point number 7 of naming an article. If it is impossible to develop all points of views! Even after, let's assume bioelectromagnetics is perfect... where' still going to want to develop more details on EMFT. More precisely, I'd like to see what exact modulations some proponents propose and what are the perceived or real effects (be it empirical or scientifically proven). I wonder if we really need a mediator though to figure this out? The more I think about it... unfortunately... the more I think we still do. However, if you feel differently, since I have noticed an improvement in our communication, perhaps then we don't. If you agree that we can talk about the above questions/topics/etc. at least one more time, then, I see no real reason to have a mediator. --CyclePat (talk) 05:25, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
No. We don't need any mediation. Thank you for your time. I'm confident we'll work things out. --CyclePat (talk) 18:04, 13 June 2009 (UTC)
Mediation Case Closed On behalf of MedCab: Renaissancee (talk) 19:12, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

electromagnetic radiowave vibrational energy

Latest comment: 13 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

The universe is full of energy vibration, the earth is bombarded by cosmic energy 24/7 we are part of the whole, how then can there be any question that we as human recipients of that cosmic energy are not electromagnetic at the very cellular level. So carry it a step further if we, as humans, are out of harmonic balance it might leed to illness! Conversly following this logic can we bring ourselves to a state of wellness by using frequencies of the same pitch as the body. Like two tunning forks of the same pitch, strike one and bring it into proximity of the second it starts vibrating using only the energy vibration from the first fork. It stands to reason this is a viable MEDICAL treatment to many health issues created by the dumming down of our natural frequencies. I have seen the results in clinical settings, WE ARE ELECTROMAGNETIC in nature not just chemical responses as western medicine seems to adhear to. Realignment electromagnetically works on a variety of health issues allowing the body to heal it's self. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.14.3.85 (talk) 22:50, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

The universe is full of lethal ionizing radiation, the earth is bombarded by this lethal radiation 24/7. Luckily our atmosphere protects us from most of it. But because we are part of the whole, how then can there be any question that we are made of uranium at the very cellular level. So carry it a step further if we, as humans, do not receive sufficient lethal ionizing radiation it might lead to illness! Following this logic can we bring ourselves to a state of wellness by living next to a nuclear reactor and using face cream laced with radium. Like two tunning forks (or even tuning forks) of the same pitch, strike one and bring it into proximity of the second it starts vibrating with less energy vibration from the first fork. Because of the laws of physics. You know, that stuff I didn't pay attention to at school. It stands to reason that vibrating tuning forks are a viable MEDICAL treatment to many health issues created by the dumbing down of our naturally intelligent frequencies. I have seen the results in clinical settings (although nobody else has and I haven't published them in any reliable peer-reviewed sources). WE ARE TUNING FORKS! And also, BIOLOGICAL ENTITIES that have evolved to the point where we can use our brains to ignore total claptrap. Western medicine IS EVIL! EVIL I TELL YOU!!! Except when you're really ill and it cures you. Or you get hit by a car. Then its okay. Realignment of quantum electrotelephonic-ultraliquidity on quark states works on a variety of health issues allowing the body to remain in pretty much the same state as it was before I took the homeopathic medicine. Famousdog (talk) 11:33, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

removing POV tag with no active discussion per Template:POV

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I've removed an old neutrality tag from this page that appears to have no active discussion per the instructions at Template:POV:

This template is not meant to be a permanent resident on any article. Remove this template whenever:
  1. There is consensus on the talkpage or the NPOV Noticeboard that the issue has been resolved
  2. It is not clear what the neutrality issue is, and no satisfactory explanation has been given
  3. In the absence of any discussion, or if the discussion has become dormant.

Since there's no evidence of ongoing discussion, I'm removing the tag for now. If discussion is continuing and I've failed to see it, however, please feel free to restore the template and continue to address the issues. Thanks to everybody working on this one! -- Khazar2 (talk) 23:53, 26 June 2013 (UTC)

the time has come for a more respectful understanding and less tolerance of willful manipulative deception

Latest comment: 10 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Novocure

http://ki.se/ki/jsp/polopoly.jsp?d=45618&a=166234&l=en

http://www.fda.gov/MedicalDevices/ProductsandMedicalProcedures/DeviceApprovalsandClearances/Recently-ApprovedDevices/ucm254480.htm

Tumor Treating Fields (TTFields) (www.novocure.com) are low intensity, intermediate frequency alternating electric fields, which are able to inhibit tumor growth both in vitro in various cancer cell lines and in vivo in tumor-bearing animals (Kirson ED. et al., 2004, 2007).


The technology is out and legal. and being followed up by more.

This article is over. It should be deleted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 13:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

Isn't that Novocure stuff a legitimate line of enquiry? This article is about the altmed practice of electromagnetic therapy (a different topic). Alexbrn talk|contribs|COI 13:32, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No Tumor treatment fields are not made out of science dust. Those TTFs are made out of electromagnetic waves. The Novocure is one kind of device. TENS units would be another. Bottom line. The day of holding back scientific and medical progress is comming to a close with the acceptence of modalities proven by Novocure and the USFDA. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 14:09, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


?????????????attention requested. The Tumor Treatment Fields of Novocure are comprised of ELECTRIOMAGNETIC FEILDS according to them and the FDA. So their qualified existence contradicts much of this article.  !!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 17:07, 15 December 2013 (UTC)


AMA reference 20 years old invalid in light of time and progress. The first refernce, it is no longer correct and should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 19:53, 15 December 2013 (UTC) 


I am still of the opinion that this article merits deletion in light of the new understandings.  ELECTROMAGNETIC THERAPY is here.

And it is not quakery.The article is grossly invalid now.TO say nothing of its sister article being redundent.This article fails WPV and WPRS.

The clinical accepetence of novocure invalidates the previous assertions. In part in in whole but not with out effect. Things change. Roll with it.

nomination for artilces of deletion

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Electromagnetic_therapy_%28alternative_medicine%29_%282nd_nomination%29

That link should take anyone to the deletion talk page I hope.

The article itself is fubared in light of FDA approval and acceptence of Novocure. Electromagnetic "tumor treatment fields" fields are being used in the mainstream medical establishment to cure cancer. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/23659608

Most everything in this article is now invalidated heresay. Its time for deletion has come. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 22:45, 15 December 2013 (UTC)

No to deletion. Tumor-treating-fields are a sub-set of Electromagnetic therapy AND their effectiveness is not accepted within the mainstream. This is still early research that has come under some not insignificant criticism. However, it is correct that this article should include info on Tumor Treating Fields. The currently existing wiki page: Tumor Treating Fields is not a wholly bad summary. I have suggested that that article be merged into this page, see below discussion--Cooper42(Talk)(Contr) 22:31, 17 December 2013 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Electromagnetic_therapy_(alternative_medicine)/Archive_2&oldid=1136693914"