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

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

• • • • • New Comment: Now that it has been established (below) that BE = electroporation applied to bodily fluids and tissues--as in skin contact electrodes for ionized delivery of medications at voltage and current levels used by Dr. Beck's BE machines, the second link, the first electroporation pub-med reference involves "in vivo" electroporation delivery mechanisms for medications involving gene therapy for cancer, and as such indicates the power levels, pulse duration, (Joules; a.k.a. Watt-seconds) used for this application, and shows that drug / medication absorption into blood cells is so facilitated--again exactly as Dr. Bob Beck had reported from his experimental findings. The full text of the article will have the specifics, that are related to BE, but the abstract of the article lacks detail that would so indicate the direct associations. Oldspammer (talk) 12:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
        • 'New comment supplemental:'

Initially developed for gene transfer, electroporation is now in use for delivery of a large variety of molecules: From ions to drugs, dyes, tracers, antibodies, and oligonucleotides to RNA and DNA. Electroporation has proven useful both in vitro, in vivo and in patients, where drug delivery to malignant tumors has been performed. Whereas initial electroporation procedures caused considerable cell damage, developments over the past decades have led to sophistication of equipment and optimization of protocols. The electroporation procedures used in many laboratories could be optimized with limited effort.
Gehl, Dr. Julie, Copenhagen, Herlev, Denmark.

This quotation from the latter electroporation article provides additional examples of the uses of in-vivo electroporation (BE = electroporation) on other than gene mixing such as delivery of drugs, dyes, tracers, etc, into cells. It also provides a differentiation between older, high-powered in-vitro experimental gene experiment equipment meant for one or ten cells, for example, and the newer, safer, "sophisticated" electroporation applications and equipment (such as those similar to Dr. Bob Beck, Steven Kaali, et. al., and so on). Oldspammer (talk) 13:09, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: The first ref that you gave was used, then deleted by someone. A person below makes the comment that if the dental bacteria reference information is placed back in the article, that they will change back their vote to delete. The reasoning for this given was that blood, as a liquid, is different in significant ways to the liquid of oral fauna microflora, although both contain ions, both contain water, both can conduct current, both can host bacteria, and so on. I think that it was that the specific pathogens that were hosted by each environment were so totally different spiecies and types and colors. The factors of this discrimination should probably be listed by the editor(s) themselves again to refresh our memories.

The second and third references that you cite are regarding electroporation, and, to my knowledge BE may involves a weak form of this, but the mechanisms of BE are not really explained that I can find. From what I recall, genetic manipulation electroporation on small cell samples usually does involve much more voltage and current (power levels) than is usually used for many of the other forms of lower power / longer duration elctroporation liquid purification or medicine delivery usages mechanisms cited by the various related patents literature.

In addition to those that you mentioned, three or four more scientific journal entries were cited by Kaali, several involving viruses, light, stain, and current; and another one from an infectious disease journal from the 1930s probably related to liquid food-stufs treatment with electrical current.

However, I think that every one of these was rejected and deleted from the article text for various unsubstantiated, speculative reasons (POV & OR) regarding their inapplicability to liquid, or blood or the differing strength of the current used, or that light and stain with electric currents had been used--not just electric currents, or whatever grasping at straws could be and was done by the various editors responsible for those deletions in the text. Oldspammer (talk) 06:10, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

None of those refs deal with blood electrification. One is on killing bacteria in a saline solution, and the other two are about the use of electroporation as a means of gene therapy. They were being misused and say absolutely nothing about "blood electrification" as an alternative medical therapy. MastCell ^Talk 23:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

The various BE patents and supporting research papers say that not just blood can be so treated. Let me repeat that: the various BE patents and supporting research papers say that not just blood can be so treated. Specifically included are biological, or synthetic fluids. The dental bacterial and microflora and plaque reference support all these BE patents' claims. The various devices of the various BE patents are one application involving direct electrode contact with the blood in the vessel system, or extracted treated similar in manner as dialysis, and Beck's application of the the technology applies higher current flow through the skin into the blood vessel system to achieve similar charge flow densities per liquid volume using whatever suitable treatment duration and repetitions to achieve desired levels of liquid (blood in this case) purity.

A report provided by one Beck machine user was that application of the device's electrodes inside of his mouth had a curative effect on various dental conditions. Another completely different person reported that application of the magnetic pulser (magnetically induced microcurrents) were able to treat oral bactrial infections--gingavitis, chronic bad-breath, and tooth decay--stemming from resident microorganisms. Oldspammer (talk) 17:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Very early studies demonstrated non-thermal killing of microorganisms by electric field pulses which are now associated with electroporation-5. Much more recently, compelling evidence has been gathered that electroporation plays an important role in cell death and the associated tissue damage of electrocution injury-45, and that membrane recovery can be significant improved by providing a nonionic surfactant-46. Thus, like essentially all natural phenomena from which technologies are crafted, there are both desired and undesired outcomes. In order to obtain optimal outcomes, considerable additional understanding of electroporation will be needed.
-Electroporation-A General Phenomenon for Manipulating Cells and Tissues
- Dr. James C. Weaver, MIT-Harvard

Robert C. Beck had claimed that electroporation was happening. The mechanism of BE has been also theorized by others as being lysing of the pathogens, that being weaker than blood components required for biological blood viablility, pathogens are so deactivated or destroyed. The quotation above is accurate in that further understanding of electroporation is needed.

That conventional medical and genetic electroporation devices and their application use much higher power levels for smaller pulse duration does not rule out that electroporation is not happening to a varying degree in BE with longer time intervals at lower power levels. Existing observations offer that further investigation is required.

Electroporation is a fascinating cell membrane phenomenon with several existing biological applications and others likely. Although DNA introduction is the most common use, electroporation of isolated cells has also been used for (1) introduction of enzymes, antibodies, and other biochemical reagents for intracellular assays; (2) selective biochemical loading of one size cell in the presence of many smaller cells; (3) introduction of virus and other particles; (4) cell killing under nontoxic conditions; and (5) insertion of membrane macromolecules into the cell membrane. More recently, tissue electroporation has begun to be explored, with potential applications including (1) enhanced cancer tumor chemotherapy, (2) gene therapy, (3) transdermal drug delivery, and (4) noninvasive sampling for biochemical measurement.
-Electroporation-A General Phenomenon for Manipulating Cells and Tissues
- Dr. James C. Weaver, MIT-Harvard

Another example, it is well known that current / voltage applied to a patch and membrane packet on the skin of a patient can be used as a delivery mechanism for medications / drugs transcutaneously. The ions of medication are driven more readily through the skin into circulatory system than is done having just the patch sit there passively. In the literature surrounding the ion - medicine delivery system, it is also noted that the medication so delivered is demonstrated more effective, although it is not know exactly why this is so. The mechanism for the medicine delivery through the skin is that the skin pores open up to grant passage to the ionized medication that attempts to travel in the direction of current flow. The medication delivery system uses currents exactly comparable to those used by the Bob Beck machines (in the order of a very few milliAmperes applied to the surface of the skin). The Beck observation that the effect of drugs, herbs, foods (diet) absorption in the blood is amplified by the BE process is completely consistent with the observations of the ionized drug delivery system observations. The Weaver cited reference then applies in two applicable ways: 1. the current levels can be in the order of milliamperes through the skin (as in the drug delivery system) that is indeed microporation (as Beck had stated), and 2. Claims of microorganisms being killed by electroporation--electrical forces that induce current flows.

The lysing ("popping") of the extremely weakened white blood cells in advanced AIDS patients is apt to expose the festering / reproducing AIDS virus within in such weakened T4 cells to the full brunt of the electric current flow of BE, thereby specifically deactivating the actual viruses from such affected cells. Oldspammer (talk) 14:43, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Pulsed-electric field (PEF) treatment is a nonthermal pasteurization technique which inactivates microorganisms (15, 20) by irreversible structural changes in the membrane, resulting in pore formation and loss of the selective permeability properties of the membrane (6, 13, 17). The extent of the permeability increase depends on the strength and duration of the electric field pulse (2, 6, 11, 19, 20). An imposed electric field causes polarization and subsequently accumulation of free charges at both sides of the cell surface, leading to an increased transmembrane potential difference and a reduction of the membrane thickness which finally results in pore formation (2, 19). Since nisin and PEF both act on the membrane, an additive effect might be expected.
-Pulsed-Electric Field Treatment
- Irene E. Pol, Hennie C. Mastwijk, Paul V. Bartels, and Eddy J. Smid
-Agrotechnological Research Institute (ATO-DLO), 6708 PD Wageningen, The Netherlands
-from American Society for Microbiology

From further research I have found that "genetic research"-electroporation equipment operates on between one and a small handful of cells. This equipment uses electrodes with a separation of one cm (rather larger than the microscopic cells--permitting lots of different paths for the electric current to flow that would avoid exposing the cells directly), and a pulsed high powered DC current that lasts in the order of microseconds. The reasons for this are 1. Very high power guarantees that the cell pores opens even if the main flow of current through the ion mixture is concentrated not directly in the path of the cells, 2. the pulse duration is short to prevent irreversible cell damage or death and to permit the cell pores the chance to recover, 3. inherent cellular capacitance keeps the pores open long enough to perform the genetic manipulations, 4. subject cells under experimentation may be human cells, not bacterial / pathogen cells, and so would or could require more power to open the pores, and that would otherwise deactivate / devitalize the pathogens if not suitably adjusted for power or duration so as not to devitalize / deactivate them.

As the above quotation indicates, strength and duration of the applied current determine the extent of electroporation / BE effectiveness and or danger to the viability of the blood components. At lower currents for longer times, BE kills pathogens while leaving blood cells biologically viable.

BE Beck device operates using electroporation in the manner as the medication delivery method described by Dr. Weaver. Patents descriptions for the medication delivery system can verify the level of current flow involved. Patients using the medication delivery systems are not unduly stressed by any electrical stinging sensation of the current used--similar to how Beck BE users adjust the current settings to suit their thresholds for comfort with its use. Duration of medication delivery is comparable to that of a Beck BE treatment session. Oldspammer (talk) 06:01, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: If I recall, I wrote the cautionary phrasings in the article about electroporation. I then read (from an unreliable source, as it turns out) that Bob Beck was inaccurate--that electroporation involved much higher electrical power levels. However, Beck's lectures insisted that there were effects during blood electrification from having consumed various drugs, alchol, coffee, cigarettes, herbs, and seasonings (diet), and they were noticeable during experimental treatments. In my Bob Beck article that I've been developing, the phrasing was that Beck cautioned that these toxic effects were due to "a weak form" of electroporation. The blood electrification article was edited by other contributors. But the original intent of the reference was to link to the definition or explanation of what electroporation really was, notThe article, infact, to proves that electroporation was happening in this case, or and that the reason that pathogens were being destroyed was due (only) to electroporation. If this appeared to be implied, then it was caused by the many revisions and different contributors involved who were probably unaware of my eventual intent. Beck's experimental results should be respected , but the analysis can be rejected as wrong. The reason for the effects that Beck noted may not have been for the reasons that he had analytically deduced, but this does not mean that these negative side-effects did not exist. Blood cell permeability must be is affected somehow, but not in the way Beck had explained back in 1998 in his various video recorded lectures.

When I first heard Beck speak of this, I did not even know how to spell the word electroporation, nor did I know what it meant exactly. I saw a TV show episode of "ReGenesis" where the main character stands in a field and looks skyward and visualizes that the toxic and bio-waste materials used as fertilizer caused ordinary bacteria to combine with a strain that was resistant to bacteriological soap or cleaners, doing this re-combination by electroporation from the occasional lightening storm shooting lightening down into the soil where these contaminants were dumped. I then realized that this would never be what was happening with blood electrification as energy levels were no where near that of a lightening strike!

The thing is that neither you, nor anyone else suggested in the talk pages for the article that any revision of the phrasing involved should be changed. I think that now someone has deleted some or all of it? This may not be safe if there are dangers involved at all? Oldspammer (talk) 08:53, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

I should also point out that until I do read the theoretical reasons for the modality of BE, that we should not rule out that, In fact, electroporation is what is happening. Any speculation on your part or mine that it strictly is or is not electroporation is unsupported WP:OR, WP:NPOV and speculation. I have never said that it strictly was not, only that it seemed less likely to be so, given that other applications of electroporation seem partial to using higher energy levels. Again, no deception on my part, but OR and POV on your part of this discussion when you claimed that it is deception and that electroporation is strictly unrelated to BE. If we wait a few years, then find out that BE is caused by electroporation, won't you have egg all over your face for having so strongly argued against its possibility? Get a cloth for your face? Some scientist? Oldspammer (talk) 09:30, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, it is apparent now that we were mislead into doubting Robert C. Beck. A full reading of the journal articles involving electroporation proves that it is the method of action of these related phenomenon. BE = electroporation. Electroporation applied to other liquids such as milk or yogurt (pasteurization) is merely performing the identical action that is being done to blood during its purification. Oldspammer (talk) 19:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Re:reply. Subsequent to the patents being issued for in-vitro blood electrification in the early 1990s, patents have been awarded for similar blood electrification processes, the intent of which is to make the donated blood supply safe from blood-borne pathogens.^[1][2][3]

A video that I watched on Ozone therapy said that recent studies of the mechanism of the operation of the T4 lymphocyte cells has indicated that they themselves use small electrical charges to attack pathogens. A search of pub-med may produce results if the correct key-words are used, but so far I have turned up no such information.

Blood is a bodily tissue, and as such it can respond as other tissue does to electric currents. A deletionist editor could not for the life of him see any connection between bioelectrification (that was a merge candidate topic with blood electrication) and blood electrification and so deleted a pub-med sourced China cancer study on 386 clinical patients with non small lung tumors where electrodes were implated. If you do a Google search for "promising cancer treatment" electric you will find a site of a medical researcher who has been trying to get sets of clinical trials going for many years by going through the proper channels, however, his efforts have been completely blocked.

The Bob Beck "Take Back Your Power" lecture notes does cite 3 published articles on blood electrification. The Kaali, et. al. findings were presented at a Washington DC. combination therapy AIDS conference in the early 1990s--and Bob Beck investigated the information and found that journal entries for the presentation / report were deleted from the preceedings. Beck then hired a private investigator who tracked down an attendee of the conference to get a copy of the orignal information presented.

Nick mallory again disappoints with his less than civil chime-in regarding my confusion (or my stupidity). Read all the material regarding 1897 patent claim first-see references below--any liquid can be so treated to kill pathogens--water, blood, milk, juices, etc.

Nick, also, the more modern patents that make reference to this old one should also be studied because these will explain in more modern terms, based on more recent research findings, the basis of the claims made.

1. ^ Charles Bruce Fields, Phillip F. Burris. US Patent #6539252 " Method and apparatus for the treatment of blood borne pathogens such as immunodeficiency virus". Google. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
2. ^ Charles Bruce Fields, Phillip F. Burris. US Patent #6539252 " Method and apparatus for the treatment of blood borne pathogens such as immunodeficiency virus". Patent Storm. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.
3. ^ Charles Bruce Fields, Phillip F. Burris. US Patent #6539252 " Method and apparatus for the treatment of blood borne pathogens such as immunodeficiency virus". US Patent Office. Retrieved on 2007-07-10.

Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Nick, According to Beck, thousand of lives have already been saved from AIDS, some from cancer, and suffering releaved from chronic fatigue syndrome, etc. Many doctors reading journal articles have found lots of junk studies supporting the latest wiz-bang pharma product. This does not make good science either. Oldspammer (talk) 23:12, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

This is outrageous really, you're claiming this device cures AIDS and cancer and I see on your user page that you're claiming to have built one yourself and that it cured you of the common cold as well, and yet you're chiding the rest of us for a lack of scientific rigour? Pretty much all your editing seems to concern this 'invention' or its inventor and yet on the message you spammed several user pages with you complain that everyone else is biased. If you really think your machine cures the common cold, cancer and AIDS then get some investors, do some double blind tests, publish in a proper medical journal and bask in the glory of being the most famous person on earth while you sit back counting your billions and billions of dollars, rather than waste time writing about it on here. Nick mallory (talk) 08:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment These "sources" are simply repeats of the same patent using different patent search engines. Please don't insult other people's intelligence. For those who are not familiar with patent search engines, consider this question. If I want to keep an article say, about a fictional character. Do searches on various search engines (Google, Yahoo etc.) on the very same fansite help in asserting notability? ---Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Reply: You are mistaking my intentions. Each patent engine has a different user interface and presentation of the information. One of these engines might be more useable than the others. It is for convenience that I made 3 available from which you can merely click the one that you prefer. It was not meant as trickery. Gee, everything seems to be trickery? Oldspammer (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

A pub-med sourced study conducted by dental doctors confirms that microcurrents also kill pathogens . The suppression continues... Oldspammer (talk) 22:33, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment Oral bacteria are not equal to blood pathogens. There are a lot of difference between those two.^{[citation needed]} Also things that are effective in vitro does not mean it will be effective in vivo.^{[citation needed]} It only means there would be a possibility that it will be effective in vivo. Please, no more deception.--Lenticel ^(talk) 00:19, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment reply Oral bacteria have been traced to causing other forms of ill-health like heart problems. Dentists like also to be considered health professionals (after all). :^) However, in general the claims for this technology are that all pathogens in a solution can be inactivated with electric current--of which oral bacteria from a WP:RS scientific paper just happen to be the single easy to demonstrate example of such a pathogen. That blood is such a solution that is able to pass such electric currents results in the ability for individual researcher / experimenter / patients to try the blood electrification treatment to inactivate pathogens that may be causing them ill-health. Protoscience--and not pseudoscience. The claims can be verified. You are all invited to try it. Oldspammer (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
• Further Comment: The second, more modern BE patent beyond the Kaali one states clearly that human clinical trials were undertaken, and 100% successful outcomes were proven by PCR tests. Page 14, column 2, top of the page--human subjects. PCR count examples outlined specifically. One with a huge initial count, probably of a man near death. You have been uncivil to me by saying that my comments or use of journal articles was deceptive. All the article text was factual. All my comments have been factual. Where is the deception? Where are your WP:RS and WP:V to establish your OR statements that the differences are so huge between oral fauna microflora and blood borne pathogens? For all I know you could be a garbage man who knows nothing about biology, or medicine, or physics, or electrical engineering, etc. Oldspammer (talk) 06:10, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment As lenticel said, I fail to see how this has any direct relation to this concept of Blood electrification. So far I see a single patent, but that is not sufficient evidence to show verifiability or notability, as the issuance of a patent only demonstrates that a claim is novel. The claim does not even need to be proven true.^{[citation needed]} I am not making the argument that this subject will never be appropriate for WP, just that at this time, there is not sufficient verifiable sources to make it appropriate for WP at this time. If it works, people will start writing about it, and at that point, you can recreate the article and source them. -Verdatum (talk) 02:09, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment reply There is more than just one blood related electrification patent. That you did not realize this--well hmmm... US Pat. 6539252 is at least one other.

This is at the protoscience stage, and is open for testing of the claims. No one is stopping this research, however, some companies will not fund it, nor provide facilities for the experimentation to be performed--for obvious financial reasons made clear to anyone who watches the lectures presented by Dr. Bob Beck. In addition to blood, the technology harks back to the 1897 patent for treating fluids to kill pathogens. Blood is a fluid, no? Undesirable pathogens can make their way into the blood stream, no? Viruses, fungi, bacteria, molds, mycoplasmas, and similar such things constitute such pathogens. That "all pathogens are inactivated" is what is claimed by the patent by the list of Medical Doctors who were awarded the patent. It would be slightly different if an average joe taxi driver was submitting the patent claim, but instead, these are medical research scientists at a medical college who did this. Somewhat convincing for me is that no one is trying to make billions from this stuff. Bob Beck openly published the circuit diagrams for all of his protocol equipment so that anyone could repeat the experimental results. Maybe it is that no one can lock this technology down and force people to buy from only one source or provider--some of the patents are really old--the equipment is easy to make--the equipment is cheap to build too. Oldspammer (talk) 05:50, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• I'm not sure I get your point. It sounds like you agree with me. There is not sufficient reliable sources for this topic, and therefore it is not currently appropriate for Wikipedia. The fact that Bob Beck has done research and lectures and such is unimportant to Wikipedia. Being a tertiary source of information, it is concerned with whether or not other reputable sources are talking about Bob Beck's research and lectures (or publishing it in peer reviewed journals). Wikipedia does not care if this is happening due to some global conspiracy or if it's just becuase no one is interested, without evidence of notability, it does not belong. -Verdatum (talk) 06:33, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• The number of links to WP:RS in the article depends on how much time has been spent by deletionist contributors on the article. One editor will come in with a certain mindset that is quite close-minded so that even related Pub-Med sourced references are removed if not strictly dealing with microcurrents of electricity or with strictly the blood, or whatever.

Sources must be relevant. It is not controversial to claim that the direct application of mA has a biological effect. It is controversial to claim that the indirect application of currents orders of magnitude smaller have a biological effect. It is misleading to cite references to the former in an attempt to support the latter, and entirely correct to delete these references. LeContexte (talk) 10:51, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

This blood electrification is "a technology." It is just a consequence of the original 1897 discovery / patent. The Kaali patent, and similar ideas / subsequent related patents just add to the body of knowledge of the specifics of the application of the original idea / patent / technology. One application purifies canal water at some number of liters per minute with moderate current and relatively low voltage. Another purifies drinking water and shows that the current can be reduced if the time is increased. One application treats dairy product bacterial cultures for whatever purpose and can kill the microbes--virus and bacteria present using high-voltage, bi-phasic, square-wave, medium current "electrical shocks." Each application of the technology has specific parameters. For the blood electrification application, it seems that if the Kaali-specified application of microcurrent is applied to his given volume of blood per unit time, then his claim is that blood purification will happen without danger happening to the blood, i.e., you're good to go. Beck's application of the technolgy makes it available to everyone by adjusting the parameters for electrification yet again: higher current to penetrate the skin, longer treatment duration to achieve higher levels of purity of the blood / body tissues.

Given that this is a technology with medical applications, it should be permitted some lattitude in its explanation of the concepts involved. Pulsed Electromagnetic Fields (PEMF) was FDA approved now for two purposes: mending bone fracture non-unions, and Cell Polliferation Induction for healing wounds. Blood electrification as a technology differs very little from this approved PEMF except that the PEMF technology was introduced to the medical field in a more politically correct manner than was attempted by the Dr. Robert O. Becker, M.D. with his electrodes who wrote "The Body Electric: Electromagnetism and the Foundation of Life." Becker lost his job, and Dr. Charles Andrew Loockerman Bassett got his PEMF devices approved for human and animal treatments. To me, the distinction between the PEMF and electrode use is a very tiny one, but the big difference seems to involve the politics of electrodes / electro-medicine / biology as being dismissed immediately as quackery with no just cause what-so-ever!

I believe that WP:RS are not abundant, but the reason for this it the taboo nature of electro-medicine. No scientist wants to get entangled in this. Pub-Med has mention of this in articles I'ved searched. Some area of investigation leads itself to suggest further investigation into use of some form of electro-medicine that uses electrodes and electric current, but the author of the article identifies rightly that the topic is "politically sensitive." Oldspammer (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Recent deletionist edits to the Blood electrification article have removed most or all WP:RS sources based on OR and POV opinions of some delete voting contributors. These included the scientific research chosen by the group of medical research doctors, medical research scientists, and medical professors that was supposed to be part of the basis of their patent claims. If these WP:RS sources (Pub-Med) were left in and not immediately deleted for POV unsupportable opinions (just cause), then many of the delete votes on this page would be left without justification that no WP:RS could be cited / referenced to support the statements in the article. As soon as I place any WP:RS Pub-Med references into the article, the text is deleted for POV OR justified reasons by some delete voters from this page. Oldspammer (talk) 17:02, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

You are citing Pub-Med research relating to the direct application of currents to tissue (or in vitro) to non-selectively kill bacteria and viruses and using this to suggest there is medical support for the notion that applying very small currents to the skin selectively kills viruses and cancer. This is, at best, original research/synthesis and, at worst, misleading. It is not POV to point out that the sources do not support the article. This discussion should continue on the talk page. LeContexte (talk) 17:10, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Newer response: BE is not restricted to in-vivo or in-vitro. Kaali, et, al. had covered both kinds of BE (or did you not read their information?). As shown above, BE = electroporation. An Alzheimer's patient might believe your argument that electroporation of the blood (BE) is completely unrelated to electroporation of other fluids because they have lost the abilities for judgement, reasoning, and higher level thinking. The observations of the first commentator, Corvus cornix_talk, about there being Gov documents on this--not giving it a second thought that it was not electroporation--was quite right from the git-go. All the delete arguments presented so far are largely groundless, or easily fixable, given the now verified information that BE = electroporation applied to what Kaali had specified in his patent (go read it): blood and/or other body fluids and/or synthetic fluids. Oldspammer (talk) 17:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• There appears to be disagreement about the definition of "Blood electrification". As far as I can tell, Kaali's writings never made mention of the term. It is a term coined by Dr. Beck for his "Blood electrifier" machine, which is strictly in vivo. The fact that we cannot even agree on the definition of this term is exactly why this article is up for deletion. I rewrote the lead section to attempt to give a more explicit defition of the term, but it's admittedly pure conjecture. I cannot find an explicit definition of "blood electrification". If you want to see this article avoid deletion, I suggest you stick to discussing how this page relates to WP policies, and not the content of the page. The question here is not whether or not this article is good, it's whether or not an article by this name deserves to exist, and whether or not the current content of the page is in any way salvagable. -Verdatum (talk) 18:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Not necessarily you... But because the argument was very selective, based on opinions of applicability to BE, however the text of the article that someone deleted merely stated that the patent application of Kaali, et. al., included these various published paper studies in support of their claims--which is factual and apparently to these medical scientists, researchers, professors of medicine is pertinent to BE. Other referenced patents (of Kaali, et. al.) of exactly related prior art inventions used other scientific journal papers, and some of their own set of experimental results to support claims of pathogen destruction in liquids--blood is a liquid, no? Oldspammer (talk) 17:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• Comment: Debunked--where?

So far, I can find one blog entry by a person who made a home-made unit. There is no telling if he applied the machine properly by supplying enough current, or sufficient time, or positioned the electrodes in a stable fashion to positions that would permit arteriole BE to happen, or that his machine put out enough voltage to overcome skin resistance at all, or that he used an ion saturated conductive gel or sea-salt water to assist in skin-contact conductance. He may also have been treating his health maladies that were related to surgically damaged tissues, and could have been practicing some other dietary regime that interfered with the process. Did the man use the sea salt solution, but not re-apply it as it evaporated from around the electrodes? Because his efforts were conducted in isolation from anyone else, he would not have been able to have anyone point out any troubles with his procedures.

I saw a video clip of the mythbusters seemingly trying to reproduce John Bedini's work. What a joke! No real effort was applied to see if they were even close to doing it right. Eg., no magnets on the flywheel for the coil pickups to have any magnetic impulses to pickup while their engine turned over; using a 90% energy loss conventional electric motor where there was no chance to recover such losses; using a metallic flywheel that would interfere with any magnets if so placed upon it; coil windings of inappropriate impedance; probably numerous other blunders. Bedini himself points some of these fallacies with their so called debunking effort on one of his "free-energy" machines.

Other examples of debunking involve drug trials where 1/100th to 1/16th of the effective dosage is used in the drug to be debunked. Even then the submitted results were tampered with so that no positive effects were tabulated, nor found their way in the observation summaries. Their conclusions were forgone: drug to be debunked is ineffective against disease. How surprising?

Other blood treatments have probably been conducted in a similar shoddy fashion to elicit the desired outcomes for the people funding the scientific studies. Oldspammer (talk) 11:52, 19 December 2007 (UTC)