Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)

Recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

Multiple uses of Pulsed EMF

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

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

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

and

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Old information, newly found:

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

— PMID: 7546114

and

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

— PMID: 7982015

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

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

— PMID: 11279778

Updated as follows:

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

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

— PMID: 16625564 and Cochrane Review

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

LED wound healing therapy

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Telluric

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

EMF therapy and EMF dangers

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Revert

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Bone healing

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

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

Discussion of bone healing

Well there is more than 134 peer-reviewed articles at http://www.gopubmed.org/ on PEMF which suggest there is a benefit. Our job is not to do a peer-review but, I think, it's to find out which ones are most adhered to. Example: "The value of pulsed electromagnetic fields (PEMF) for the treatment of persistent rotator cuff tendinitis was tested in a double-blind controlled study in 29 patients whose symptoms were refractory to steroid injection and other conventional conservative measures. "[2] is an abstract... which is not often used. But bone healing is often cited. It is also often cited in secondary sources such as the reputable peer-review medical journal from The New Book of Knowlege. Anyways, we are supposed to used secondary sources. Most concur that there is a limited evidence, but there is some evidence, of benefits to using EMF therapy. In particular most articles I've seen, in the medical field, concentrate on bone healing. As for WP:RS nothing in that "guideline" (not even a wikipedia rule) mentions the word patent. Can you please be more specific? --CyclePat (talk) 17:41, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

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

Devices

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

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

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

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

Patents are primary sources, you can't use them to say things such as "it has been established". They are also basically self-published. We had a discussion about them not that long ago: [3] which also linked to [4]. You can of course use a patent to show that a patent exists. Dougweller (talk) 18:05, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Methods that use externally applied electrical force?

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

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

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

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

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

"Alt Med" to medicine

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

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

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

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

Rename

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Requested move (first attempt)

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)
  • Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and bellow for explanation. --CyclePat (talk) 07:52, 18 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

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 [5], 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.[6] 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."[7]. The first occurance of alternative therapy (again... unproperly referenced) occured Oct 21 2006.[8]

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.

General Interest : addition and sources

• Electromagnetic resonance systems:
  • http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/87ehd-dhm127/index-eng.php (Pdf version)
    • http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/87ehd-dhm127/mr_fields-champs_rm-eng.php
• RF
  • http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/ewh-semt/pubs/radiation/99ehd-dhm237/index-eng.php
• Patients with active implantable medical devices and systems (AIMDS)
  • "Patients with active implantable medical devices and systems (AIMDS) are at risk of injury from interactions between the AIMDS and other medical devices used for diagnostic or therapeutic purposes. Such interactions could damage some AIMDS resulting in loss of therapy from these units, and could cause tissue damage resulting in severe injury or death."[9]
  • and the update in 2009.[10]
• TMR (TRANSMYOCARDIAL REVASCULARIZATION) LASERS
  • http://www.hc-sc.gc.ca/dhp-mps/prodpharma/sbd-smd/phase1-decision/md-im/sbd_smd_2005_tmrlasers_68013-eng.php
• Medical telemetry systems or Biotelemetry
  • Warning Hospitals to change frequency of device due to potential interference with US FCC radio frequencies.[11]
• Electromagnetics in Canada
  • Health Canada references IC[12]
    • Industry Canada's (IC) Spectrum Management and Telecommunications[13]
      • Competition Bureau: CSCT Inc. Court case (False and misleading cancer treatment)[14][15]
    • Safety Code 6
• Image-Guided Therapy use of EMF[16]

For another articles:

• ELFs [17]
• RF exposure [18]
• PCS [19]

Please concider this mediation

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

See also

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

• Proton therapy
• Particle therapy, because of the connection EMF radiation or particle radiation
• Radiation therapy, because of the connection with RF or EMF radiation
  • CRT, a type of radiation therapy
• Radiotherapy, probably an unintentional fork of Nuclear medicine
  • NRX, from Canada's Chalk River Labs
  • production of radioisotopes for medical purposes
  • Fast neutron therapy
• Hyperthermia therapy, because of the use of Microwaves to heat certain cell.
• Electroconvulsive therapy which should probably be considered for merger with this different article but same topic, electrotherapy.
• Light therapy, because of the photons,
  • Monte Carlo method for photon transport
  • Photodynamic therapy (PDT)
  • Image Guided Radiation Therapy (IGRT) or On-board.
• X-ray, because it's a form of electromagnetic radiation
• Magnet therapy
• Gamma ray, because this is electromagnetic radiation of high energy. … uses such as in CT Scans and radiation therapy.
• Photothermal Therapy
• Note: I'm adding Hoxsey Therapy, but only because I really enjoyed the FDA 1956 warning Public Beware. Surely, if EMFT is widely used we should be able to find something of the sort which cautions against EMFT (alternative devices) from being used solely for Cancer treatment?
• Doest EMFT have a Therapeutic index? Does radiation therapy have a Therapeutic index? If so why? If not why not?
• What is the relationship between Ampere-hour and radiation therapy?
• Space medicine brings forward some interesting facts regarding the origins of some EMFT devices. ie.: Muscle stimulator device which provides electrical stimulation to muscles, Surgically implantable heart pacemaker which depend on satelite transmissions, Implantable heart defibrillator.)
• Photodynamic therapy which matured into an acceptable medicine. Somewhat similar to Microwaves in Cancer treatment.
• Radiobiology, very interesting because it studies the entire EMF spectrum in medicine, including ionizing and non-ionizing radiation. (ultrasound thermal radiation, radiowave, microwave, etc. see also biophysics
  • Novatrans, a type of radiobiology?
• non-invasive (medical) is a term used to describe EMFT. This term should be used in the article.
• Specialty (medicine) explains the relation between
• Energy (esotericism) a link with the Spirit??
• Therapeutic ultrasound... though sound is not EMF... interesting article. I wonder if there is any reliable sources regarding EMFT helping in the delivery of certain drugs, similar to Acoustic Targeted Drug Delivery?

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."[20] 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""[21] 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?[22] 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

"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.[23] 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)

CyclePat's recent changes

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.

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)