User:Tiggerjay/OldSpammer Archive

This is an archive of specific information and sources which OldSpammer has posted to User Talk:Tiggerjay and have been truncated out to cleanup the talk page, however I wanted to ensure that they survived somewhere since they are certainly a significant amount of effort and research. Tiggerjay 18:00, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Blood electrification

You changed a couple of sentence involving HIV. By definition HIV = human immunodeficiency virus. Animals cannot get this virus. Only certain animals have anything remotely related to this. HIV is a very specifically targeted human virus.

Please change the appropriate passage in the article to whatever you find more or most suitable.

Know then that anyone trying to cure or use animals involving HIV AIDS (in treatment clinical trials) is tricking everyone, themselves included--whether or not they are using drug or electromagnetic therapies.

HIV AIDS must be studied in-vivo, or must be combined in human cell cultures with a leukemia virus so that the culture does not immediately die. This was supposedly how the Pasture Institute, Paris, and how Dr. Robert Gallo isolated and discovered HIV in vitro--by using a leukemia virus to keep the cultures viable.

As to what one prior contributor meant by "animal models of HIV," that may also be fantastical? And THAT should probably be a questionable fact template tag target!

Also, the following phrase should still be included in the article:

Bob Beck thought that the 1990 information about "blood electrification" was being suppressed by the medical establishment. As evidence for this he pointed to the Longevity Magazine article December 1992, Page 14 that stated that the blood electrification treatment was unproven and would be ready "only after years of testing"--a virtual retraction of their prior discovery reports."

The reason for this is NOT that it is controversy about Beck, but that Beck turned up controversy over blood electrification--that an attempt was made to cover it up or suppress the knowledge of it.

In fact, library texts that talked about the HIV AIDS Combination Therapy Conference (in Washington D.C.?) had parts of journal pages razor blade cut out of them when Bob was trying to get his hands on this literature. Bob claimed in his videos that he had to hire a private investigator to find intact copies of the proceedings by finding an attendee of the conference who still had their copy of it. Perhpas this too should be added to the article with suitable citation given. Oldspammer 14:00, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

A couple of things:

• The HIV issue probably has to do with the fact that they test with lab animals for treatments before in humans. They are probably trying to express that it hasn't been proven in animals, little alone humans.
• "...claimed that Robert Beck was persecuted..." appears to be about Beck
• "Beck believed many odd things..." again, appears to be about Beck -- no mention of B/E
• "germ warfare virus research resulted in the development of HIV AIDS" appears to be about HIV and/or Beck -- no mention of B/E
• "Bob thought that the 1990" this would appear to be an appropraite place, however this is not the correct TONE and should be re-written.

Also, you do not need to extensively defend your edits on my talk page. If you disagree, you can always exercise your ability to revert or roll back my edits to your latest version. However, please read [[WP:RRR]. Also, while you appear very well intentioned, and your articles contain a lot of interesting information, you need to ensure that you are following the policy of WP as a majority of your articles do not carry the correct STYLE or TONE for a WP article. Also, you appear to need to learn more about OR since your edits appear to be OR. Review these, you will probably find that your edit are more acceptable and reverted less. Tiggerjay 16:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Electromagnetic therapy

You deleted 1.1 kbytes of text.

For one, the article is about Electromagnetic therapy and not specifically about cancer treatment.

One point of view is that the world is round, etc. At one time the majority POV was that it was flat. Caution to readers MUST be provided that accepted science supports that evidence shows the world is, in fact, round, regardless of a reference citation that might state otherwise. Are some people trying to keep the world flat?

The cited reference American Cancer Society article is demonstrably inaccurate.

When a cited article by ANYONE makes specific statements that are untrue, Wiki article text should be included to caution the reader about specific misleading information. Is the misleading information a POV or deliberate? I am pretty certain that the various cancer societies around the world would rather not have electromagnetic therapy proven effective against a wide variety of diseases--there is no money to be made since lots of it is so cheap. If there were studies proving that some treatments were dangerous or completely ineffective, they would certainly have been published by now and provided as cited references on the various cancer society pages of the world.

The removed text cautions readers to be skeptical about certain baseless information that might be found in the ACS article so that as a result the reader is not mislead by those specific items.

For example, a Rife information item on the ACS article says:

Rife Machine

Also called frequency therapy, frequency generator, and Rife frequency generator, this device is used to direct electrical impulses at the feet to break up the supposed accumulated deposits of toxins at nerve endings. During treatment, the patient places his or her feet in a plastic box attached to the Rife unit.

Rife did not target the feet. Rife did not use plastic boxes. Original Rife equipment did not contact the patient at all let alone only on the feet. Rife certainly, categorically did not target toxins--he targeted pathogenic causes of diseases.

The Rife machine (or Rife frequency generator) was created by Royal Raymond Rife, an American who asserted that cancer was caused by bacteria. The machine supposedly emitted radio waves at the same frequency as those discharged by offending bacteria. According to Rife, the radio waves created vibrations that "shattered" the bacteria.

Rife said that cancer could be caused indirectly by couple of cancer viruses that were multi-morphic during their life cycle, depending on the tissue / culture medium. Mention of bacteria by the American Cancer Society is completely and utterly false information. Today it is known that large numbers of cancers are cause by viruses. To mention bacteria is intentionally misleading people to think that Rife was fraudulent or stupid in this regard, when it turns out some cancers are caused by viruses. Look up "human leukemia virus"--there are HLV-I, HLV-II, HLV-III, and numerous other viruses for other types of cancer.

There are numerous other parts of the American Cancer Society web page article that are misleading.

Even their referenced 1994 CA Cancer Journal article makes baseless claims specifically about Rife technology.

Some parts of their article are fine--to those parts, I have no scientific objection--like:

1. seeking all manner of help that you can--not just alternative therapies
2. some machines can be dangerous to people using pacemakers, insulin pumps, or that such machines could be constructed with unsafe power supply wiring, etc.

It would have been more agreeable if the framework of controversy could be maintained by changing the section title appropriately rather than removing 1.1 k of useful text.

Afterall, the original title of that section was not just "Critisizm." It was later changed to just "Critisism."

I would not mind if the 1.1 k of text were placed into a different section, as long as it is permitted to rebuke the misleading information presented in the ACS reference.

The ACS web page is an article, and not a study. It is not even a scientifically grounded article that cites any science to support its claims.

WP can describe a debate--what the sides are.

The debate is ACS says "all EM devices" are quackery because they have not yet been approved, whereas, hundreds of thousands of people are self-treating themselves--some with as much or more success than conventional therapies, and that veterinarians have been using certain types of equipment successfully for years on their animal patients to treat a variety of maladies.

WP:NPOV has the following passage within:

A simple formulation

Assert facts, including facts about opinions--but do not assert the opinions themselves.

To my knowledge, I factually described the ACS article. To my knowledge, I did not state any opinions.

That the article facts that I stated reflected poorly on that article, I am as displeased about it as anyone could be. If they had put together a better piece on the subject, I would not have any disagreements about it.

That the facts that I stated about the ACS article appear to be critical, many merely outline the limiting scope of the article, and that the article has some mistakes or questionable parts in it.

Oldspammer 21:45, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

WP is not a forum for debate or discussion within an article, and more specifically WP:OR, which is what it appears you are doing with many of your artciles. Please take a moment to review WP:OR. Additionally, it would be appropriate to re-write the "Criticism" section to read NPOV, since it appears argumentative or defensive. At this point, regardless of your statements, it would appear to the casual reader that your un-sourced statements are to question and appear argumentative, and the ACS study (by virtue of notability) would be the real reliable source. Additionally, you call into what the ACS Study "is not" however their website specifically states: "This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions..." An example may be:

• The American Cancer Society states: "relying on electromagnetic treatment alone and avoiding conventional medical care, may have serious health consequences." In some cases, the devices may be not only ineffective but harmful in and of themselves. [cite] However, this information only covers a Electromagnetic Therapy in a broad sense, and has not conducted specific treatment methods expressed in this article.

Tiggerjay 16:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I apologize if anything that I've said offends you.

I feel frustrated by my inability to strictly adhere to the WP policies and guidelines, but still make it clear to WP readers that there is propaganda out there on both sides of the alternative medicine issue. Reformatting, rearranging text, entering text, researching information sources, permitting others time to help edit is much more time consuming and it is like stomping on my face when good faith contributions are deleted without _ANY_ talk page contributions by 'such contributors' to suggest that RS be found to support what at first glance is OR.

Please try to assist me overcome my inabilities.

How do you suggest that WP readers "be warned" that certain references have mixed reliable and unreliable information therein?

Should these references be deleted--and the reasoning be placed in the talk page for the article? I do not know what to do?

On good faith I will try to persuade you. Here is the actual text involved:

CA - A Cancer Journal for Clinicians - Questionable methods of cancer management: electronic devices 1994;44;115-127 contains the following passages:

The Rife
Frequency Generator allegedly would
generate radio frequencies of precisely
the same vibratory rates as the offending
bacteria and destroy them in a manner
similar to an opera singer's voice breaking
a crystal glass. (Note: Although
sound waves can produce vibrations that
will break glass, radio waves cannot destroy
bacteria due to their low energy
level.) It is clear from descriptions of how
Rife's Frequency Generator supposedly
functioned that it was simply another
radionics device.

Observable facts:

1. The phrase inside parenthesis is patently false, and is not supported anywhere by any data or even by _ANY_ theories.

Several counter examples are demonstrated by several videos on different web sites where paramecium are killed. BTW, paramecium are much larger than either bacteria, mycoplasms, or viruses. Gary Wade, PhD physics, has published reasoned theories. John Bedini, Eng., and Dr. Robert E. Strecker, MD., PhD have stated the technology works having "actually experimented" with the original equipment in 1974. Newspaper articles from the 1930s and 1940s have stated that a Montreal MD. at McGill University reproduced Rife's results. For decades Dr. Couche MD. used the treatment machines to successfully treat patients against the will of the AMA, who groundlessly declared the equipment unsafe against what scientific testing labs had analyzed and reported to court.

2. Royal Rife dealt with both filterable forms and non-filterable forms of pathogens. As this article relates to Cancer, Rife indirectly linked at least two filterable forms of pathogens with it--BX and BY viruses.

This was then (1920s - 1940s) the definition of what was a virus. Single celled organisms such a bacteria would have been filtered out by such processes--berkefeld-N or berkefeld-000 filters. Since Rife was dealing with viruses in regard to Cancer and not bacteria, the above CA J 1994 paragraph is not accurately presenting facts to all who read it.

3. The statement " It is clear from descriptions..." by the authors of this supposedly scientific journal clearly illustrates that no hands-on data was collected, nor analyzed, nor concluded upon, nor peer-reviewed by other scientists.

The WP reader can then conclude on their own that no experimental data is used, nor experiments cited, the scientific basis for this statement is nil, and therefore groundless.

4. The names of the "updated" article authors are not given. This means that no one individual, or group of named people are responsible or will be held responsible for the information given.

No one reading the article knows whether or not a child wrote the thing, since no one can inspect the credentials of the authors. What qualifies the authors to say what they do? Nothing! Who would put their name on such "questionable material?" No one did!

When all sources who blanket-criticize all EM therapy devices cite as a reference this particular journal article, it puts into question the reliability of that source, even though there are, as I said, some valid statements and arguments put forward by the ACS article, and perhaps other such articles.

Oldspammer 16:02, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

There are three sentences that you have in regard to the ACS article stating some things. The sentence(?) starting with "However," that appears to be some form of disclaimer of sorts, I cannot find in the ACS article. They do have their standard disclaimer at the bottom of the page:

"Note: This information may not cover all possible claims, uses, actions, precautions, side effects or interactions. It is not intended as medical advice, and should not be relied upon as a substitute for consultation with your doctor, who is familiar with your medical situation."

But the note that you have would have been nice for them to have if it were stated at the beginning of the ACS article (and were a proper sentence).

• Please simply refer to WP:BRD regarding on how I, along with others edit pages. There is no need for a lengthy discussion over each edit performed on the related pages. The process is based upon someone editing boldly (which may include removing content) and then you having the option to revert (or roll back the article to pre-deletion state). At that point, if there is still a problem, a discussion can take place. There is no need to go point-by-point except on specific parts which are constantly being deleted and then reverted. Also, please see your talk page about some other suggestions, such as avoiding the appearance of WP:OR and WP:OWN. Have a great day. 15:51, 18 July 2007 (UTC)