Talk:Frequency Specific Microcurrent

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Stub This article has been rated as Stub-class on the quality scale.

[edit] Psuedoscience?

  • I retagged as advert. Seems at best to be alternative medicine and at worst, psuedoscience. This article reads like this is a mainstream medical procedure, whereas PubMed gives 0 hits [1]. Therefore, I'm a little confused by the various claims that "studies show..." in the article. Please cite. - Aagtbdfoua 04:51, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
I was just adding a series of 5 citations today, that were reverted, and was asked to talk on talk page. What is the talk page? I'd had the window open for several hours, as I added links, and lost a bunch of work. I'm not happy about that, as I could have watched TV instead, or read something that was less involved competitively.
Pubmed gives far more than 0 hits, but if you're only searching for a particular phrase, rather then disassembling into little bits and pieces with a view to the general overview you'll be disappointed, then perhaps pubmed will result in that.
A simple google search for the phrase "Frequency Specific Microcurrent" results in a number of pages that of course, many do not come with citations. So somebody needs to disassemble this into the various accepted practices that it's used in, then show how it ties together. A biophysicist by the name of Oschman, J has published some on the topic, but what he says doesn't really make a lot of sense without a specific basis, a basis that certainly appears to exist at pubmed and IEEE.
Anyway, I'll check back in the morning, if the edits have been reverted again, I'll assume the worst, that citations and basis is not what is desired here, and I'll move along. Otherwise, after voting (political election) at some point in the day or the day following, I'll get back to it.

71.128.192.243 (talk) 08:40, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

For the time being, the 5 citations added are enough search work for me, though there certainly are other studies at pubmed on the same (disassembed) topics which generally are: "microcurrent", "frequency", "electroacupuncture", "biolectronics" (tends to result in DNA studies), "inflammation" (when combined with one of the others as limiter), etc. There are also other keyword candidates, as well as other research portals, though pubmed is one of the more publicly "open" ones. J. Oschman's studies, the ones I've found publicly available anyway, tend to be, to use a metaphor, looking at the whole forest of trees, whereas the citations added tend to be looking at individual trees within the forest. Oschman does cite others that came before him. "Frequency Specific Microcurrent" is a complex and interdisciplinary topic. 71.128.192.243 (talk) 20:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem I'm having is that these articles generally do not mention "frequency specific microcurrent", so I don't see how they can be used to support this article without engaging in original research. If they cover electroacupuncture or electrotherapy, then cite them at those articles, rather than trying to shoehorn them in here. The best approach might be to present the sources you have in mind here, on the talk page, with a clear explanation of how exactly they relate to frequency specific microcurrent. If said explanation involves a lot of editorial interpretation, then it likely represents original synthesis. MastCell Talk 23:50, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
What do you mean by "generally do not mention"? For example: a high voltage "pulsed" current, as in one reference you've deleted, clearly implies "frequency" even though it may not be specified in Hz. Additionally, "high voltage" makes no statement with regard to current under Ohms Law, but we do know that "high voltage" combined with "high current" results in biological fatalities, therefore, we also know that very low currents were used per standardized and well-known practices as typically used by physical therapists and others over the last 20 years or so. I'm also surprised that you've deleted the electroacupuncture citation which clearly defines differences relating to small frequency changes in pain reduction, due to the known connection between chi in acupuncture (TCM) and today's "energy medicine", which is what the objection to the entire topic appears to be, and which is some of what Oschman attempts to understand. The modeling study from IEEE also explained why frequency changes may be important from a mechanistic healing viewpoint, and supported the wound healing effects of "Electro Pressure" techniques. But ... whatever. 71.128.192.243 (talk) 00:40, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
My point was that what you consider "clearly implied" by these studies may not seem so clearly implied by others; hence, original synthesis is something to be avoided. When you, as an editor, have to invoke Ohm's law to synthesize an argument for the relevance of your source, then you're violating WP:NOR. MastCell Talk 00:42, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
From your cited link: "Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: to demonstrate that you are not presenting original research, you must cite reliable sources that provide information directly related to the topic of the article, and that directly support the information as it is presented." I guess we disagree on the meaning of English, itself. Ohms Law is pretty much implied in any discussion of electrical principals and specifications, indeed, it is even implied in the title of the article itself. ...Anyway, as I wrote above, I have no intention of making any further attempts to re-add the information, it is now in the page's history, at least until the page itself is deleted! 71.128.192.243 (talk) 01:27, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I think the key words are directly related. I don't see these sources as "directly related". If they were, you wouldn't need to go through contortions of original synthesis to relate them. MastCell Talk 03:07, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
You're entitled to your opinion, but wonder about the "contortions" characterization and its intent. Did you mean to refer to Ohms Law as a contortion, but projected it instead to me using second person?
First and foremost the Wikipedia:No original research guideline appears concerned mostly with sourcing and citations from 'reliable sources' to insure that article presentations are not original, while your claim above states "I don't see how they can be used to support this article without engaging in original research" (emphasis added). Later, your argument morphs to interrelationship objections (direct versus indirect or synthesis versus original research) in a topic that represents a converging of alternative with mainstream, as well as within several different disciplines.
On the same guideline page, under the sub-heading "Synthesis of published material serving to advance a position", the following quote is found: "Summarizing source material without changing its meaning is not synthesis — it is good editing. Best practice is to write Wikipedia articles by taking claims made by different reliable sources about a subject and putting those claims in our own words on an article page, with each claim attributable to a source that makes that claim explicitly." Each and every sentence I wrote as summary was sourced. Perhaps those sentences could be semantically improved, but the sources spoke for themselves.
When claims are made that a topic is or may be pseudoscience, then reliable sources are added upon request, later those citations are deleted when they tend to refute the prior pseudoscience assertions, is this not a similar form of original synthesis by omission? Whether it is or not, it seems a violation of the WP:NPOV policy, found on the same Wikipedia:No original research page, which in part states "By reinforcing the importance of including verifiable research produced by others, this policy promotes the inclusion of multiple points of view" (emphasis added again) That may be an intent behind your deletions, conscious or unconscious, to deny points of view that are dissonant to advantage your preferred viewpoint over the other. 71.128.192.243 (talk) 07:18, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

← While I do always appreciate IP editors who bring to light my unconscious motivations, I'm going to have to disagree. I don't recall describing this as a "pseudoscience" anywhere, so maybe you could edify me on that point. I do think that you're unecessarily convoluting a simple policy, though I won't speculate on your motivations. If the articles you cite actually deal specifically with "frequency specific microcurrent" (as opposed to electrotherapy, electroacupuncture, etc), then it should be trivially easy to demonstrate it with direct quotes. If the sources do not anywhere use the term "frequency specific microcurrent", but you feel they are "clearly implying" the subject because of the relationships described in Ohm's law, then you are engaging in original synthesis. MastCell Talk 19:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

The "pseudoscience" created question is the name of this talk sub-section heading, if you look up above you will see it followed by a question mark"?". I made no assertion that you personally wrote it. Further, I made no absolutes regarding your motives, note the use of "may" in my related sentence above.
You have asserted that you "think" I'm making a simple policy convoluted. Language that exists on the WP:NOR page clearly states in regards to three policies together: "Because they complement each other, they should not be interpreted in isolation from one another, and editors should familiarize themselves with all three." 71.128.192.243 (talk) 23:36, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I do actually feel pretty familiar with all three. We still need sources which actually discuss, rather than "clearly imply", frequency specific microcurrent. MastCell Talk 23:43, 7 February 2008 (UTC)