Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Blood electrification (2nd nomination)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was delete. Neıl ☎ 15:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Blood electrification

Blood electrification (edit|talk|history|links|watch|logs) – (View log)

Creating proper 2nd nomination for User:Lenticel, who asked me to do so on my talk page. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(Broken clamshells•Otter chirps)} 00:31, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Note to closing admin: I've moved a number of very long comments (primarly from Oldspammer) to the talk page of this AfD. Avruch^Talk 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Please try to keep your responses succinct and focused on policy discussions for or against deletion. This is not the place to discuss general theories about the subject of the article. Avruch^Talk 19:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• I don't understand what the deletion argument is. There are government articles on the subject. Keep. Corvus cornix_talk 00:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Sorry, where are the government articles? MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • [6], [7], [8] Corvus cornix_talk 04:39, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
      • Those are PubMed listings of journal articles. None of the listed sources deals with blood electrification as discussed in this article, and a long trail of original synthesis is necessary to make any sort of tenuous connection. MastCell ^Talk 21:22, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
• Note: This debate has been included in the list of Medicine-related deletions. -- A. B. ^(talk) 00:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep. I agree, no reason to delete. Properly sourced, looks good (but I'm freaked out by the thought of my blood being electrocuted). J-ſtan^Talk_Contribs 00:52, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
  • Properly sourced? I see a U.S. patent being cited as if it were scientific proof of efficacy, and "lecture notes" from a marketer of "blood electrification" devices claiming his products are being suppressed. Are these really the sort of independent, reliable secondary sources that would establish notability or allow construction of a neutral, encyclopedic article? MastCell ^Talk 18:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)
    • Beck died in 2002. He had nothing to sell or market. He published information, and lectured about a suppressed medical discovery of BE. He made available patent-free circuit designs for the various treatments in his protocol, and explained the mechanisms of the treatments. Beck did make EEG machines years ago. The lecture notes can be found from whatever sources that you can locate that suit your reliability scale requirements. Oldspammer (talk) 01:16, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Besides, if you've read the comments above and reviewed the article's edit histories, you'll see that probably 5 to 8 pub-med / journal article references were at one time present in the article, but then deleted for POV / OR reasons by 'contributors' who have voted delete here. Oldspammer (talk) 06:33, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay (Internet connection is erratic, you don't know how much I clicked the Save changes button), I'll copy my comment from Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Bioelectrification.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete both. due to notability as they are unsupported and undiscussed by reliable journal articles per WP:FRINGE. No reliable hits for both articles on Google, Google Scholar or PubMed. Links to PubMed in blood electrification is deceptive since it states something obvious to those who know biotechnology but not to laymen. they may be convinced to think that they are reliable sources. Yes they are RS but not for this article. Those links can be put to good use in electroporation where references are needed. (Note to nom: fix the other Afd on blood electrification, it redirects to the last one. Feel free to put my comment there once it is fixed)--Lenticel ^(talk) 03:09, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Google searches reveal some interesting links and details. The bottomline question, to me, is if such an article deserves deleting. Redevelopment is another issue altogether. Shiva Evolved (talk) 01:24, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep As a person with a science background, I do not embrace hucksterism. After reading the first AfD discussion, I agree with one editor, in that the main reason I support keeping the article is because I would like to see more evidence showing that it is quackery. I could see an article like this having very legit educational purposes. Delete After doing some more research, I see too often articles on pseudoscience get abused by supporters of pseudoscience to push a POV until it is impossible to restore the article to a more factual status. The last 24 hours have been disappointing in what I have seen. LonelyBeacon (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

The burden of proof is on the proponent. Scientists don't waste their time testing every shed built wonder cure. If this device worked then the inventor would be polishing his Nobel prize instead of pushing it at snake oil shows around America. Nick mallory (talk) 07:18, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, these findings were published in at least three places.^[1] You should be asking why would this be a threat to big pharma or the cancer industry? There is a claim that a Mexican hospital nominated Bob Beck for a Nobel for his AIDS treatment protocol that incorporates the blood electrification treatment. Re-read the article from December 11 time frame. The Drs. making the re-discovery found out that this information had been known to work since 1897 and had to cite this prior art invention patent in their patent applications. Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I can't find any reference to this Mexican hospital Nobel nomination, either in the article history, or on google. Link please? A small blurb in the Houston post, printed in 1991 which is quite early on in AIDS research is not terribly reputable. Also, FYI, referencing a prior patent within a patent application is not, in itself, strong evidence of relationship. You are required to research and make full disclosure of any existing patents that may have similarity to the ideas claimed in that patent. Patents are often referenced in patent apps purely as a "just in case" measure. -Verdatum (talk) 02:26, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I said it was a claim--I do not even believe it! If you search hard enough, some hokey alt-health site probably still has some mention of it. Here is one of the links I searched for this. Oldspammer (talk) 06:46, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete Lenticel is quite right. Electroporation is a legitimate topic, but this one on 'blood electrification' is quackery masquarading as science. Electroporation is the use of short high-voltage pulses to overcome the barrier of the cell membrane and so allow drugs or other molecules, even DNA, to be absorbed by it. That's very different to the claim made in this piece that 'blood electrification' cures HIV. The sources provided in this piece are either irrelevent (e.g. links to papers on electroporation) or fringe sites with no academic or scientific validity. Can I urge editors to read the piece and think about it. It claims that a cure for HIV was discovered over 15 years ago by this method. Don't you think that might have garnered some news coverage, research data and practical applications if it was actually true? The onus is on proponants of this method to prove its validity, which they can't because it has none that I can see. Nick mallory (talk) 04:56, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, "that you can see?" Where are you looking? 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

In peer reviewed medical journals. Call me crazy, but they might just have covered a technique which could cure someone of HIV, apparently they haven't which leads me to think blood electrification, in this context, is bollocks. Nick mallory (talk) 08:03, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, in regards to electroporation, from the quotations above, it is evident that electroporation is the mechanism of BE. So the electroporation Pub-Med source should be back in the article.

• Delay judgement and add {{expert-subject}} for now - really, who here is a researcher in the field and can say anything about the subject that isn't guesswork? It looks fringe/controversial enough for me to delay my judgement and ask an expert, and I suggest we as a community do the same. --Arcanios (talk) 10:05, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete. There is no evidence this is quackery, any more than there is evidence that my pet goldfish Stevie can't cure cancer. Both are wild claims that are too obscure for anyone to bother taking them on. Certainly not notable. After two years, the only references anyone was able to find were to vanity web pages of proponents, misleading links to scientific papers that are not relevant to the claims being made (as Nick mallory points out), and a patent (which shows nothing - many/most patents are non-notable).LeContexte (talk) 10:38, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

A medical patent makes claims. The claims are examined by qualified examiners and their consultants. As a medical patent claiming curative effects, it must demonstrate utility. Utility for a medical patent means that it must provide evidence that it works, and that it is safe (not an instrument of murder for anyone making use of the patent invention). If any type patent claim is remarkable and cannot be demonstrated or supported by evidence presented to the patent office, then patents are rejected / denied. Claims made in medical patents of a curative nature must be demonstrated before patents are granted. Patents are legal documents that can be presented in court. The studies and evidence can be kept confidential. Oldspammer (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep. Since 1897 (more than 100 years ago) electric currents have been known to eliminate pathogens from liquids.^[2] The invention at that time was intended mainly to pasteurize milk, but any liquids could be so treated to kill pathogens. You delete voters must be upset that your schooling did not teach you these facts for you would surely have taken this for granted otherwise. I have also noticed that Delete voters here have begun to attack other alternative medicine articles with waves of deleting article content without cause. Georges Lakhovsky for example. It is no wonder that my Dr. Robert (Bob) Beck, DSc., article was voted for deletion if the entire pharma and mainstream science establishment is on the lookout for electro-medicine information being circulated? It is evident that Nick Mallory has done little research on the internet for this since there are lots of Google videos on Bob Beck / Robert C. Beck / Suppressed Medical Discovery - Granada Forum / Bob Beck Protocol, and so on. Oldspammer (talk) 16:11, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

  Reply The outcome of other AFDs do not have bearing on this one. Nor should an Afd be taken personally. If an article clearly violates established policies on WP, it should be deleted. If you believe you can find reputable sources that support the claims in this article, you should edit the article to include them, or at least give strong support for your belief in their existence. The references currently listed do not appear to support the claims made, and lecture notes do not count as a peer reviewed source. If you feel the sources given deserve more credit, please explain why. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Attempting to confuse pasteurisation with blood electrification is typical of the scientific muddle headedness of this article. It's like saying 'of course elephants can fly, haven't you heard of jumbo jets?' Criticising my lack of research on this topic is, um, ironic Oldspammer. This is medicine, google video isn't the place to do your research, try pubmed or the Lancet. I'd be delighted if this technique worked, millions of lives could be saved, but there's no evidence that it does and it's just irresponsible to leave articles like this around Wikipedia which could raise false hope or stop people seeking proper medical attention. Nick mallory (talk) 07:04, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete This is arrant nonsense. We need to be far more concerned that a wikipedia article gives it some credibility and prevents someone from seeking sensible medical advice. Placebo effect treatments must complement evidence based medicine, not replace it. --Red King (talk) 16:47, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

In the mid-to-late 1990s, Dr. Bob C. Beck, DSc. physics, conducted his own clinical study of AIDS patients by making his blood electrification and other equipment available for use for free by patients in several Southern California hospitals with the proviso that Beck receive copies of these patient's before, during and after AIDS PCR tests. Beck during many of his health show, college and video lectures carried with him a sample of 20 or so such before-after test results. He said that he had a stack of such results that were 2-feet high, but carried with him only those whose subjects had given him permission to make their information public. Beck would typically ask any interested healthcare professionals to have a look at the reports and indicate to the others in the audience whether or not the results were as Beck had claimed. Several such videos show such a person verifying Becks assertions. Unfortunately the disposition of all of this evidence is not known to me. Sota instruments, a maker of healthcare products endorsed by Beck apparently has also conducted their own independent studies under virtually identical stipulations, and their results also exactly match Beck's resluts--100% of AIDS patients spontaneously enter remission from PCR-detected AIDS virus particle counts, and their disease related symptoms disappear. Please take the time to all of the videos that you can before you authoratively declare quackery / arrant nonsense. Perhaps various medical journals were contacted and sent the study results, but for whatever reason they rejected it because it could wipe-out all their pharma corporate ad sponsors? Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete References do not appear to support the claims given. I have no reason to believe that reliable resources for this subject exist. -Verdatum (talk) 21:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
• Weak Keep Further scrutiny of WP:FRINGE leads me to now conclude that the existence of an article on this subject may be appropriate. However, the article in its current form needs serious Cleanup. That's acceptable because it appears to be a surmountable problem and AFD is not cleanup. I say weak keep because according to WP:FRINGE, "In order to be notable, a fringe theory should be referenced extensively, and in a serious manner, in at least one major publication or by a notable group or individual." and this is an extremely subjective and debatable criteria. -Verdatum (talk) 17:22, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Comment: We shouldn't delete an article because it makes claims which cannot be supportable, so long as there is sufficient sourcing to indicate taht it is, or at least was at some point, believed. After all, we have an article on Phlogiston. (This is not an OTHERSTUFFEXISTS argument, this is an argument that we can have sourced articles on quackery.) Corvus cornix_talk 16:47, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

However in this case it doesn't appear to have been believed in by a notably large bunch of people. LeContexte (talk) 16:52, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• CommentNo, we shouldn't have articles on non-notable uh... inventions as they to are subjected to rules regarding reliable sources. My search tells me that nobody in the academe paid attention to this uh... technology. The article that you mentioned is a part of the history of science just like alchemy so comparing that article to this one is inappropriate. I hope I'm not insulting your intelligence but I don't want you to repeat my mistakes in here--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete This is pretty clearly pseudoscience. In addition, it doesn't even seem to be sufficiently notable pseudoscience to warrant an article on that basis. The references are very feeble, too. Tim Ross·^talk 17:11, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: It is at the protoscience stage. All of the claims can be verified. The apparatus for reproducing the results is well documented. Oldspammer (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

verified by whom? The only sources you cite are lectures by this Robert C Peck character. He is clearly of some significance to you (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Oldspammer/Robert_C._Beck) but, for the rest of the world, he is not notable and not a reliable source. LeContexte (talk) 09:25, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete due to verifiability problems. Capitalistroadster (talk) 09:31, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Keep - The article has been correctly classified as being a part of alternative medicine. Blood electrification has existed since the early 1990s. The article has been developed beyond stub status. Whether or not the treatement actually works or not is totall besides the point. If it exists and the article is bigger than a stub, than it obviously belongs in WikiPedia. -- John Gohde (talk) 16:03, 13 December 2007 (UTC) — Canvassed !vote - see [9]

• Changing my vote to Conditional Keep as it now barely passes WP:FRINGE

I'm for keep as long as:

• • Disclaimers are not removed:

The usefulness of blood electrification is considered a fringe theory, and there are no independent, peer reviewed studies showing that this technique has any significant affect against any of the pathogens claimed.

These studies were not peer reviewed, nor were they published in reputable medical journals.

There is no evidence that such a method would be effective

These experiments have not been duplicated by any credible researchers.

To date, no tests have been performed by Health and Safety regulators to determine the safety and effectiveness of blood electrification, and this therapy has not been approved by the US FDA.

The granting of patents does not in any way imply Government or scientific approval for such techniques, nor does it imply that they work.

• • Permanent removal of the deceiving Electroporation and oral bacteria refs.

If these are conditions are not met, I'm more than happy to Afd nom this myself.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:22, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: see other comments above for electroporation. Oldspammer (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete: Sources do not demonstrate notability (per WP:FRINGE), and are manifestly unfit to create a neutral encyclopedia article. This article could potentially be rebuilt from the ground up (using actual independent, reliable secondary sources such as this), but there's nothing salvageable here - just an ad for Robert Beck. MastCell ^Talk 18:25, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Yes, no or few WP:RS left due to deletionist edits: please review the history of the article. If you have WP:RS about blood electrification (and not frequency devices, or energy machines) please add text to this alternative medicine article, then make reference to the WP:RS.

Beck is dead, and has nothing to gain.

Beck never was selling anything--nothing to gain.

Electromedicine-why is it taboo / political, and Beck for having been associated with it?

It all seems too fishy--What is at the root of the taboo-nature of this subject? Is it John D. Rockefeller and his investment in pharma and his sponsored Flexner report and the resulting schooling of medical students not to trust electro-medicine? Oldspammer (talk) 21:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Please stop veering off-topic. AFD is not an appropriate place to discuss the existence or non-existence of conspiracies. -Verdatum (talk) 21:39, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete without prejudice for recreation as MastCell described. As far as I can tell, this article is functioning as a soapbox. ScienceApologist (talk) 18:58, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: MastCell seems to have given a link to a fraudulent medical device news paper story about energy-medicine machines and so on, not anything that remotely mentioned Blood electrification or Beck or blood cleaning or anything at all related that could be used "in recreation" on any such new version of an article. Nice to see you support him/her unconditionally though! Oldspammer (talk) 01:46, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I tend never trust anyone who uses the phrase "without prejudice"--it usually means the opposite. You seem not to have read the comments here, or on the talk page, nor examined the edit history of the article, nor examined all the patents, and their cited supporting science journal articles. The momentary state of the article to me is that of one ravaged from its NPOV state. Oldspammer (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Quack nostrum being deceptively touted as if it were something else. - Nunh-huh 23:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: I don't know what your quick quip is about? It is uncivil to call anyone deceptive. You do not say why the clinical trials of the more recent patent were Quackish. . . So you appear unreasoned in your beliefs. Oldspammer (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• If you don't understand it, reread it. While you're rereading, note that it calls no person deceptive. When finished, write a brief essay about whether calling someone "unreasoned" is civil. These would all be more productive pursuits than trying to dispute here this article's many flaws. - Nunh-huh 19:35, 16 December 2007 (UTC)
• On the one hand, nostrum is unproven, and unprovable, operates in a hidden, secretive, magic, occult manner--pseudoscience. However, the devices for BE and The Beck Protocol are fully disclosed, are inexpensive, can be home built, and can be tried, as thousands or millions of people have done, safely to experiment (science) to investigate whether the scientists' claims and the anecdotal evidence, testimonials, and clinical PCR before/after results of all the others are fiction. BE is at the protoscience stage--provable and open to investigate. And, I said it appears your quip is unreasoned because you do not provide identification of specific 'flaws' and for which version of the article. If it is only the area of alternative medicine with which you disagree, and not specifically this individual article's style / content / references / layout, readers of this discussion cannot tell what is your reasoning? Oldspammer (talk) 21:37, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

• Nostrums are remedies promulgated as if proven, which are in fact unproven. Blood electrification is unproven. The article promotes it as though it were proven. Therefore, blood electrification is a nostrum. Wikipedia is not the place to encourage home experimenters to play with your favorite - and dangererous - quack nostrum in a vain attempt to procure anecdotal evidence that it "works". - Nunh-huh 04:11, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• An unproven, but promising treatment is exactly what alternative medicine is. If it were proven via double blind published clinical studies, then mainstream medicine would be using it now. So what your point boils down to is that it is still alt-med rather than mainstream. And BTW, the wiki article does not say to try it, and in fact has many warnings in the article that the treatment is unproven and unapproved. Oldspammer (talk) 06:15, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Your statement is neither true, nor fair to alternative medicine. - Nunh-huh 08:08, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Beg to differ--there are numerous disclaimers in the article about it not being approved, and being unproven. Alternative medicine is any promising medicine that has not been adopted by and is not used by mainstream medicine, or has been shunned or suppressed by big pharma for political and trust (as in anti-trust monopoly) reasons.
• In the case of diseases that are currently incurable by conventional, consensus medicine, one is forced to try alternatives, no? Consensus can be based on falsified medical journal published studies, no? Those studies are sponsored by whom? Three guesses. Oldspammer (talk) 17:23, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• The studies are sponsored by a secret cabal of conspirators whose lives are devoted to keeping sick people sick so they can reap a profit off their miserable, pain-racked bodies as they die slowly instead of being miraculously cured....probably the multi-billion dollar medical-industrial complex, I'm guessing. Unless maybe the Jews or the Trilateral Commission are involved. - Nunh-huh 23:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Weak keep. Apparently there is some notability. The existence of an article isn't a comment on the subject's credibility. If there is bad press, it should be reported, too. --Bradeos Graphon (talk) 01:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
• Delete References are almost exclusively primary sources written by the main proponents of this technique. The bulk of the article is the history of two groups' development of the technique. Wikipedia doesn't exit to advertise alternative medical treatments, especially those that have almost nothing in relevant independent literature. — Scientizzle 16:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment: Reuters News Service New York story was third party. Science News was third party source. Same with Longevity Magazine. NY News that talked about Beck talking about the technology was third party. Only the journal articles and patents by Kaali, et. al, are first-hand sources. Robert Beck was a third party to this. More than just the two patents featuring BE exist. Other patents were also issued wrt BE, but only provide the article with additional first hand sources of information. There are probably a big list of related BE patents. Oldspammer (talk) 06:32, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

The New York Press article is fine. I don't have access to the Science News article (their online archives don't go back that far, and I've no time to go to the library...), but I get the impression from the New York Press article that it was pretty trivial coverage--is it only the three sentences quoted in that article? Similarly, concerning the Reuters/Houston Post coverage, if this is an accurate reprint, it's rather trivial. There's no substantial media coverage, there's only evidence of a brief and modest blurbs based on conference prestation notes. Furthermore, there's not a single hit on PubMed for "Blood electrification" (or even "Blood electroporation"). — Scientizzle 22:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Having perused the Science News source (see the bottom of my talk page), it's the same trivial coverage. As is the Longevity Magazine claim. A single burst of trivial coverage does not satisfy WP:N in my opinion. — Scientizzle 22:40, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Given the additional sources found by Abd (talk · contribs), I'm changing my input to weak keep, with a serious trim. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you finally accept that patents are not evidence of either notability or efficacy? LeContexte (talk) 09:56, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I know that they are first hand sources, but they themselves cite applicable, directly related third-party peer-reviewed science journal studies and articles. The patents also serve to identify points in the timeline of the history involved. A group of such patents originating from completely different parties, the patents all with virtually identical claims, and different cited supporting evidence serves to corroborate each other to a much larger extent for me than mention of BE's mere existence in a WP:RS newspaper article because it provides verifiable technical information not provided in the newspapers.

I found a reference to a US FTC project "operation cure-all" that attempts not to verify any claims, but persecute those making such claims. Wouldn't matter to them that the claim is valid, if it isn't AMA and FDA approved for the given curative claims, then there's trouble. I say fine if it is untrue, but otherwise represents a big waste of time, money, and people's freedom--all to protect big pharma from the little guy.

I also ran across a documentary that shows how foolish the "quackery claims" are for certain very old treatment regimes for cancer. The documentary person investigated claims made by a turn-of-the-century or earlier German doctor who came to America and invented a diet to treat the disease. Documentary person traveled world-wide. He examined case files, conducted interviews with patients, got patients to show him proof that they had cancer, the prognosis they were given, and when it had happened. Every patient he talked to had inoperable terminal cancer 7 to 30 years earlier, yet were still alive and cancer free. One patient recounted being in cancer counseling groups, and that one by one, the other patients of the group died off because they were undergoing conventional allopathic treatments for the disease. After a relatively short time in months, none of the other initial counseling group were left alive excepting herself. Two of the cancer patients interviewed in the sample part of the video were M.D.s themselves who had had cancer years before, but were still alive. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Alternative medicine isn't on trial here. You can save your comments for some other forum--please stick to Wikipedia-relevant discussion. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete I hope I get a ten paragraph response from Oldspammer (irony anyone?). Articles need to be both notable and verifiable (i.e. the notability has to be verifiable, as well as all controversial or disputed content). To me, this particular article fails because its notability is not verifiably, and its content is also not sufficiently verifiable for inclusion. If the second were true but the first false (notable but no verifiable content) we could stub it, but since it fails both... delete. Avruch^Talk 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Hopefully brief. Virtually all of the paragraphs have disclaimers on them that the treatment is unapproved, and unproven, as well, the experimental findings are similarly marked with "these findings have yet to be reproduced, and published within peer-reviewed scientific / medical journals." Beck made claims about the work of others in a third party fashion--I.E., "Their stuff works--and what they said was true!--and here's how others think that this works!" I do not think that it is disputed that Beck made these claims, just that his third-party claims are themselves also disputed by opponents / armchair doubters, and not anyone showing scientific counter indications. It is verifiable that the patents do exist, that the subject matter does exist, that Beck had made such claims, only not that substantive claims were verified by other than Beck.

So, the topic is verifiable as existing and publicized to some extent by both a bit of media coverage, and a large amount of lecturing publicity by Beck himself--it just remains alternative medicine rather than mainstream because no funding has been made available to conduct formal studies because there is no financial incentive to do so. If you are holding your breath for it, don't. If the government changes the rules, maybe some financial incentive for investigation will happen, but probably not until then. Mainstream scientists work for big bucks. The subject of electro-medicine is taboo / politically sensitive--it's just not gonna happen very soon. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete Insufficient indication of notability in independent reliable sources. The article cites references in a (deliberately?) deceptive manner to provide specious "evidence" for notability of the topic. Raymond Arritt (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Please provide readers here the specifics of deception, and speciousness from the article. I'm interested. Let's hear / see it! Oldspammer (talk) 21:18, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

See responses from others above. Raymond Arritt (talk) 22:52, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Which one(s)? Many are dubious, to say the least. Oldspammer (talk) 17:57, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, many of the article's references are dubious. That's my point. Raymond Arritt (talk) 19:48, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete: The article is cleansing me in it's warm soapy goodness. If not delete, recommend a prune back to historical, notable and verifiable context. At the moment it reads rather like it's preaching to the masses about it's effectiveness. And that's one thing you cannot clean yourself with. Shot info (talk) 05:16, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean cut Beck out of it? Or what are you saying exactly? The article has not encouraged trying anything--look at all of the cautions in there after nearly each paragraph. Oldspammer (talk) 21:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It's really quite easy to see what I am saying. Delete. Shot info (talk) 22:46, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Soap box articles promote. This article outlines the history accurately. It states that Beck, a third party, investigated claims made, and said they proved to be true. The article should say that BE = electroporation applied to in vivo animals. No promotion -- lots of disclaimers. No specific justification for saying that it is soap box article. The article itself has no OR statements saying to try this, or that WP thinks it is viable or any such soap box message. If so, please provide a quotation here. Oldspammer (talk) 14:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Soapbox articles promote an agenda at the expense of Wikipedia's core policies. This article stated, in a factual tone, that human test results indicated AIDS was 100% treatable with blood electrification. Lots of disclaimers indeed. The article also cites www.papimi.gr, homepage of a notably fraudulent "blood electrification" device, as a "reliable source". Yet it's not a soapbox? MastCell ^Talk 00:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Strong delete This article is about something that has been thoroughly debunked. But Wikipedia has articles on a lot of medical frauds (see Homeopathy), so it could be notable. But then I reviewed the references, and it's just completely bogus. It appears that the original author intentionally tried to make it appear more notable than it really was. Per Raymond Arritt, send it away. OrangeMarlin ^{Talk• Contributions} 08:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete. Adam Cuerden ^talk 10:10, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Tim Ross and MastCell above. shoy 22:24, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Week keep and get somebody to overhaul this thing. It has poor overall structure and gets a little kooky at times. --Merovingian (T, C, E) 00:17, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete per Oldspammer and John Gohde. It is a soapbox that promotes original research that remained original research, and thus has few if any reliable sources. Beck himself is not a reliable source. Without good sources we are stuck with a promotional article being overly promoted and defended right here by one user who is misusing this AfD for personal attacks and advocacy, a practice that is forbidden and for which he can get banned. Conspiracy theories don't cut it in the real world, especially if they don't make sense (IF blood electrification really worked it would have been patented and put in use a long time ago by the pharmaceutical industry, but since it doesn't, they can't.) I have previously made my opinions on this and related subjects known to this article's OWNER in a very civil manner (in response to his comments on my talk page) and will repeat them here:

You have definitely not offended me. I don't have to prove or disprove Beck's or Rife's theories. The burden of proof is on you and them. Where is the proof (anecdotes are not legitimate for this)? If you can find published scientific evidence that is listed at PubMed, you will stand much stronger when discussing these matters.

Interestingly, Wikipedia is not about "truth", but about documentable opinions and facts. If you can provide evidence from published WP:V and WP:RS (read those pages completely) that Beck is notable (it should be possible, if not only from alternative medicine sources, but also from sources where he is criticized), you might be able to save the article in an abbreviated form. From there you can build it up using such good sources. You must not advocate his ideas, just document the opinions that exist, both for and against. WP:NPOV requires both POV. If you can do that, even I will back up the inclusion of total nonsense.[10] -- Fyslee / talk 04:35, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Keep Whether or not the article is well-written, NPOV, properly sourced, etc., whether or not Blood Electrification is quackery or not, pseudoscience or not, is all irrelevant to whether the article should be deleted. Practically the sole question is notability, and Blood Electrification is apparently notable, as can be seen from Googling "blood electrification -wikipedia." By no means was I thorough, but the best source I found in limited time was Nexus magazine, Beck's article. Highly likely to be notable quackery. I saw enough to show claims, but, of course, it would be far better if there were an overall review published somewhere. Stub it if necessary, which preserves edit history and allows recovery piecemail if proper sources can be found. "Debunked" is irrelevant to deletion, if it has been debunked, let the article show that! --Abd (talk) 04:53, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I reviewed the article in detail and found that *mostly* it was presented in an NPOV fashion. I could not verify print sources; AGF requires us to accept these as valid until someone shows them otherwise. I do not see this article as promoting the Beck Protocol or Blood Electrification; however, missing from it is sourced criticism. What criticism there is, is negative, and unsourced. "not been shown," "no published studies," and the like. Negative comments like that can't be sourced, in fact, but they are routinely acceptable because, if not true, the fact will appear relatively quickly. Surely there has been *something* critical published! Okay, found it. FTC Compromises Cancer Quackery in Mesquite FTC Black Box complaint. This last is a court filing. Reliable Source, for starters. Mentions blood electrification. I'm sure there is more.--Abd (talk) 05:18, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Coverage in the crank press Nexus may work for WP:N...unfortunately the link to the actual article is broken on that page. I'm intrigued that you found an FTC complaint that included references to Beck-derived BE technology used by Forrest. I've changed my opinion above. — Scientizzle 17:22, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I intervened here and did the research despite profound disinterest in blood electrification, because I see, too often, AfD used as a substitute for fixing content problems in articles. It took me a half hour to find the FTC filing (and there is also a consent decree), it was not difficult, I followed obvious leads. Many delete respondents above assert content issues as grounds for delete. Not. They are grounds for edits, even bold edits. For example, from above: "Quack nostrum being deceptively touted as if it were something else." If a quack nostrum is notable, as they sometimes are, there should be an article. Now, if the claim I just quoted is true and NPOV, why not place it in the article? I think the answer is obvious. It's POV; however, the *evidence* for that statement, or the *arguments* being made to that effect can be in the article. But it takes work. It is much, much easier to vote "Delete." Really think there is no worthwhile content there? Delete the content to a stub. Be bold. And if someone challenges it, discuss it and find consensus, and use dispute resolution if that seems impossible. This is how the encyclopedia is built, not by erasing the work of others.--Abd (talk) 17:46, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary, erasing the work of others is necessary when that work is misleading and poorly done. "Nexus" magazine is worthless as a measure of notability. Having an article in "Nexus" puts the crank "treatment" on a par with "an alleged time traveller who has provided US talkshow host Art Bell with some intriguing headlines from the near future" and with the "fact" that "governments, utilities and businesses are grossly underprepared for the Y2K problem". Being in Nexus is pretty much a guarantee that a subject isn't notable; if it were notable, it would be covered in serious press, rather than one chronicling the fringes of rationality. Even were this subject to be deemed worthy of an encyclopedia article, there's nothing to be salvaged from the article that currently exists - written by an advocate who is unable to distinguish Beck's quackery from electroporation. The article consists of irrational claims presented as if they were reasonable, and is a severe disservice to our readers. - Nunh-huh 19:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Notability. Notability. If a "quack nostrum" is notable, then it will fulfill WP:FRINGE. This topic does not, and constantly citing the # of Google hits doesn't help. There are no usable reliable secondary sources. An FTC complaint about a person using "magnetic pulse" generators is still tangentially related to "blood electrification" as covered in this article, and is a primary source in any case. I previously cited a Seattle Times series on the sale of such "energy medicine" devices. One could certainly write a sourced article on that topic. However, this article contains nothing salvageable, and its topic ("blood electrification") is defined narrowly so as to exclude these sorts of potentially usable sources. You can't build a neutral, verifiable Wikipedia article without reliable sources - that's the basis of WP:N, and that's the issue here. MastCell ^Talk 19:15, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

MastCell, this sounds like a reasonable argument to me. Cleanup and merge to electrotherapy then? -Verdatum (talk) 20:16, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Wow - electrotherapy is in bad shape (quote: "The superficiality of Bernstein's and Sherrington's accounts were repeatedly re-enforced by the Nobel Prize Committee of the Swedish Academy of the Sciences and the Karolinska Institute. This bit of biological sophistry was possible only because of the intervention of organized medicine which saw to the stamping out of electrical medicine as quackery and hoax during the 1930s.") Actually, I think energy medicine is the appropriate target - it's recognized and notable, though broadly defined - and the Seattle Times series, which covers the use of machines that deliver electrical and magnetic pulses to the body, describe this approach broadly as "energy medicine". My 2 cents. Still, I don't see much or any salvageable encyclopedic material here. MastCell ^Talk 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, the electrotherapy article looks to me to be in even worse shape than the Blood Electrification article, but at least it's an undisputably notable topic. However, the way I read the energy therapy article, this falls into neither of the two described categories. It is not a mechanical or electromagnetic force (as with magnet therapy), but instead the application of an electric current. -Verdatum (talk) 20:57, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

• Delete The Google search yields some interesting results indeed. Curing malaria.. HIV? However, this is interesting to the extent that it resembles more of a ridiculous theory disguised as legitimate science and little known. I agree with User:MastCell and Lenticel. mirageinred (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.