The joke of electrotherapy

[Don Quixote]

The joke of electrical stimulation

In the essay "Breakout Session3: Issues Related to Muscle Growth, Atrophy, and Tissue Engineering" (Clinical Orthopaedics and Related Research, Number 403S, pp. S252-S261, Lippincott Williams & Wilkins, Inc., 2002) the authors come right out and say, within a few sentences, that not only is there no evidence that electrical stimulation has any effect on slowing or reversing atrophy and that no professional athlete uses it, but also that it is only used on the handicapped, especially those with spinal cord injuries. That's right. Not only does it not work, but it is only used on the handicapped, those who are desperate enough to pay for anything that might work. Yet it is standard practice in the neuroscientific community to still push electrotherapy as a type of treatment, whether the treatment is called EMS, PEMS, FES, E-Stim, or whatever. The whole field is characterized by unwitting charlatanry, for many of the physicians who urge the treatment on people they can't otherwise help, really believe that what they are doing will have some benefit, even though they will not use it on themselves. But they can make money using it on those who are desperate. Not even NASA, which admits that debilitation of flight crews from disuse is the biggest obstacle to manned exploration in the solar system, will have anything to do with electrotherapy despite the claims of doctors who urge it upon the handicapped for this very purpose, but don't use it on themselves. No body builder uses electrotherapy. What's the story here?
When a muscle atrophies what takes place is the type II muscle fiber loses its cross-sectional area. What must be done to restore this cross-sectional area, and thereby the strength and mass of an otherwise wasted muscle, is trigger the synthesis of the proteins that make up this muscle structure. This can only be accomplished by strong physical exercise, the traditional resistance exercises, or the introduction of an electrical charge to the neuromuscular junction from which the type II fiber grows. In particular, that electrical charge must be introduced from the anode of the direct or monophasic current. This is elementary electrochemistry. Only through electrochemistry can nervous system trophism, like that needed to build muscle, be simulated.
Why don't all of the devices currently available to provide electrical stimulation work? Because they don't pass electrical charge. For example the PEMS touted by Christopher Reeve and reputedly being testing by the European Space Administration on the international space station, is said to achieve 'charge neutrality', that is, there is no current (amperage) passed, no matter how many volts are involved. We won't be hearing of any great healings coming from Reeve's organization and the ESA. Neuroscientific insularity with regard to the phenomenon of electricity is so institutionalized, in fact, that the FDA, in its guidelines for powered muscle stimulators that use electricity to make muscles contract, says that no machine will be approved for use and sale unless it passes no more than one half of one thousandth of an ampere. This means that the FDA will approve only those muscle stimulators that will not work. The question is why is there this prohibition on the passage of amperage. You can read about it in the essay "Biology, Electromagnetism, and the Nervous System" on the web page at www.galvanism.org (http://www.galvanism.org) This prohibition dates to 1855, long before the phenomenon of electricity was understood by physicists.
Here is something else to consider then. If only exercise [actual hard use of] a muscle or electrochemistry will strengthen that muscle, than no amount of laufband training or passive movement of the limbs will restore the muscle. Like an astronaut who returns to earth severely debilitated from months of life in zero gravity, the paralytic can be that way because of the deterioration of his muscles, not because of enduring and irreversible nerve damage or, as ignorant neuroscientists would have it, 'learned non-use'. The problem may be myopathy, not neuropathy, disuse atrophy which advances during the acute phase of injury. In a study published in 1996 in the Journal of Experimental Neurology, it was reported that in the case of the quadriplegics studied the nervous system was found to work, but that for some reason when the nerve impulse reached the muscle its power was not taken up by the muscle. This is not a lower motor neuron problem. This is an indication something is wrong with the muscle. Please check out the website. It's not yet complete. Coming soon is a tutorial on the role of electrochemistry in the origins and evolution of life. But what you can see now, in addition to a number of essays dealing with neuroscience and electricity, are pictures of the human body showing the number and distribution of neuromuscular junctions and ganglia on the body. Using electrochemistry, one must go to each of these points to deliver negative electrical charge to trigger post-synaptic protein synthesis. You can not find in any neuroscientific text any charts which number and locate all these points. Modern knowledge about the functioning of the synapse is based upon research done on squids. Maybe you don't have to be paralyzed after all, unless you stick with medical science, which claims that your paralysis [if your are an incomplete injury] is due to a learning problem, and which still holds that the electricity of the body is due to ion movement, or 'proticity', an idea for which Peter Mitchell got a Nobel in '78, an idea which, like most of neuroscience, has no clinical relevance whatsoever.

[Wise Young]

Don Q, I am sorry but I disagree with these authors. I have personally seen the increase of muscle bulk that comes with surface stimulation of muscles. The argument that "no body builder uses electortherapy" is spurious. There is no question that neural activation of muscle is much more efficient than surface electrical stimulation of muscles. For a person who can activate muscles, it would be silly to use FES. But, for a person who cannot voluntarily activate muscles, it is often useful. By the way, most such stimulation is not activatin the muscles directly but activating axons that then release acetylcholine to activate the muscle. Also, for many people, what the electrical stimulation is doing is activating spinal reflexes and spasticity that is actually providing mot of the activation of the muscles. It is one of the reasons why people should not take such high doses of anti-spasticity drugs that they are flaccid.

By the way, if you don't mind, what is the basis of your expertise?

Wise.

[Curt Leatherbee]

I am living proof with the physical stamina and the body I have now in using FES for the last three years that it does work. It gives me a good physical workout, to the point where I am working my cardiovascular system, muscles, etc. It works just fine, I dont know why so many people have such a hard time believing that E stim can be a real good thing given the proper circumstances.

[member412678]

There is evidently a great deal of contradictory statements regarding SCI out there. I know that the medical community uses e-stim in regard to injured atheletes in sports medicine (so it's not just used for SCI). I also know the E-stem unit my husband has works...I've tried it. Crank it up and it hurts! It stimulates the muscles to contract... my husbands legs can lift 10 lbs when using the TENS unit in this manner at about 40 which is pretty low.On there own, his legs can do nothing, not even a twitch. The FES bike also works, and is an amazing piece of equipment.

[Don Quixote]

I am not surprised that anyone had a comment about how, yes, it could be that chronic paralysis following spinal cord injury might follow from advanced myopathy from disuse. This would fly in the face of the current doctrine championed by the neuroscientific community, the same people who, for over a century, have been able to offer nothing in the clinic for the paralytic. That dogma states that all paralysis following spinal cord injury is due either to enduring damage to the cord or 'learned non-use', the latter being a lower motor neuron problem. Nothing is said about the muscle. Now let's look at the replies to my post.
In the first response Findacure upholds the orthodox views which have prevented a cure from being found so far. Findacure thinks that paralysis is something that can be cured like a disease, as if paralysis were not a condition, and claims that E-stim works because it is used, not because it has ever been tested on a control group. In this she contradicts the opinions of the experts who come down on the side that there is little or no evidence that it works, that not even NASA will touch it to overcome the biggest obstacle for manned exploration in the solar system. As an example she cites her husband whose muscles only work while the machine he is using [a TENS unit] is turned on and cranked up. Without he cannot even make the muscle twitch. In other words, the TENS unit is not really restoring his muscles at all since they do not work without the machine. The FES bike, she states, also works, and 'is an amazing piece of equipment'. Her husband's muscles apparently work too with this bit of equipment, but not on their own. We are asked to believe that this is a sign of muscle restoration. Findacure, like most people who think that making a muscle contract will make it stronger, believes that it doesn't matter how the muscle is made to contract, all that is important is to see that muscle twitch, that it doesn't matter if voltage transmission is the mode, or a simulation of nervous system trophism using electrochemistry, or induced contractions from the ingestion of psilocybin mushrooms which send the muscles into a state of tetany for hours. She has no idea that to restore a muscle the structure of that muscle must be affected. Goodbye, Findacure.
Curt Leatherbee, a moderator for the site, says, in another example of anecdote overruling science, that he is 'living proof'. He has used FES for three years, and has nothing to say about the need for electrical charge to trigger protein synthesis. He betrays not the slightest understanding of the difference between contractions caused by voltage transmission and and those caused by oxidation-reduction reactions involving the use of DC. He says nothing about muscle structure, but, like Findacure, thinks that what is important is the contraction. He too uses a device approved by the FDA which has ruled out, by its regulations involving powered muscle stimulators, the possibility of electrochemical intervention. Mr. Leatherbee apparently knows nothing about the history of electrotherapy, about how, for over a century and a half, it has never resulted in anything replicatable, about how researchers for the first half of the 20th century found it didn't work and how it was discarded with the elevation to near sainthood of John Eccles, Alan Hodgkin, and Andrew Huxley with the award of Nobel in '63 for a preposterous model of the electrical nature of the nerve impulse based upon an 1888 thermodynamic equation from Walter Nernst. Thank you, Curt.
Finally we have Dr. Wise Young who, like the previous two, disagrees with the experts on the basis of personal experience. He says that the argument that no body builder uses electrotherapy is 'spurious.' This is not an argument. This is a statement of fact. We are then regaled with a farrago of statements about electrical and neural stimulation of muscle, including the claim that neural stimulation of muscle is more efficient than surface electrical stimulation of muscle, and that anyone who can use his muscle would be silly to use FES. That's why body builders don't do it, maybe? They don't want to be silly? Dr. Young writes, "... for a person who cannot voluntarily activate muscles, it is often useful." Often? If your are correct, why not always? What are the cases where it is useful, and have the biopsies been done to show an increased cross-sectional area of type II muscle fiber, the sine qua non of muscle mass and voluntary muscle strength? Or is personal opinion enough here for the handicapped community wishing to find a 'cure.'? Then there is the amazing claim that "what the electrical stimulation is doing is activating spinal reflexes and spasticity", a statement that reveals a profound lack of knowledge about the structure and function of muscle. Spinal reflexes and the reflex arc are inventions of Sir Charles Sherrington having roots in his work in the first 5 years of the twentieth century, long before electricity and the structure of muscle were understood. Sherrington and Young would have us believe that a severely atrophic muscle is capable of contraction because of nerve impulses when, it was found in the 1930s and reported upon by Walter Cannon in his book The Supersensitivity of Denervated Structures, that such spasticity is a response to blood chemistry and local conditions, not nerve impulses. Apparently Dr. Young still believes that spasticity is a result of the firing of reflex arcs. In my post I reported that researchers who published in 1996 in the Journal of Experimental Neurology said that in the case of quadriplegics examined the nervous system was found to be working below the level of injury, but the muscles would still not contract. This conflicts starkly with the claims of Sherrington and Young. Dr. Young also claims that FES does not activate the muscles directly, but activates axons that then release acetylcholine which subsequently activates the muscles. It turns out that no amount of voltage transmission, the only thing available to FES, thanks to the FDA, will cause the secretion of acetylcholine at the nerve endings found in the motor endplate regions or neuromuscular junctions. The only thing that will cause this secretion is electrical charge, ruled out by the FDA, delivered by the anode in a simulation of nervous system trophism like that needed to cause the secretion of acetylcholine so that the muscle can be made to contract voluntarily. FES, like PEMS and E-Stim, and EMS, I will say again, is a bit of modern charlatanry perpetrated on the desperate by a neuroscientific community which knows nothing of history and little of physics.
Nowhere yet have I seen any response or replies which address the issues of muscle structure, or the contrast of voltage with electrical charge. The point I am trying to make here is that the clinical poverty of neuroscience is due not to a lack of data, but to the institutionalization of flawed models of the nerve impulse and bioenergetics as a result of the Nobels in '63 and '78. Gentlemen, we must return to fundamentals, we must revise our knowledge in the light of new discoveries that succeeded these awards.

Don Quixote

[Snowman]

Tilting at windmills again Don?
Quote "that no professional athlete uses it"...
My background is in sports medicine and athletic training, and I beg to differ. You can research the use of FES, TENS, and Russian Current in most sports medicine literature. These types of e-stim are used to "reeducate muscle" as well as build basic strength. A basic overview of these therapies can be read about in "Rehabilitation techniques in sports medicine" by William Prentice, this is a basic 3rd year text book for the sports medicine professional.

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/cool.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Eric Harness,CSCS
Project Walkâ„¢ (http://www.projectwalk.org)

[metronycguy]

yes as dr young pointed out
"The argument that "no body builder uses electortherapy" is spurious. There is no question that neural activation of muscle is much more efficient than surface electrical stimulation of muscles. For a person who can activate muscles, it would be silly to use FES."


thats why those ab stimulators belts you see advertised on TV around xmas time dont work , at least for AB..

[antiquity]

Hi Don,

I have heard that Russian body builders use(d) FES, I believe the first FES machines were developed by the Russians for their olympic athletes.

As a C7 complete quad, personal experience says that FES does increase muscle tone.

[member412678]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Don Quixote:


In the first response Findacure upholds the orthodox views which have prevented a cure from being found so far. Findacure thinks that paralysis is something that can be cured like a disease, as if paralysis were not a condition, and claims that E-stim works because it is used, not because it has ever been tested on a control group."
............................................
First, if you're going to say what I believe, please get it right...orthodox??? http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/rolleyes.gifI don't agree with the traditional-minded medical community at all.
No. Paralysis unfortunately can't be "cured" like a disease...at least not yet. You can call it a "condition" if you like. So is Muscular Dystrophy, MS, etc...
I never claimed that FES is a cure. I wish it were. But it is definately a means to gain back what is possible for that individual to gain back, through forced use and re-education of the nervous system/muscles. How much an individual can gain back, or rather they gain back anything at all, depends on the injury . No two are alike. I don't think much of a control group from this perspective, as no two people will have exactly the same results anyway. Some might have results, some not. FES in the least is a means to keep my husband's legs from going away... When the cure or therapy for SCI is found, we want him to be able to benefit from it. I also wonder if perhaps when an individual has less nerves innervating a muscle, that it might require more muscle mass to move the muscle itself. Just a thought. Anyway, FES is one of many therapies my husband does.

Second, I'm basing my statements on what I've personally seen. What my husband has personally experienced. We don't tend to believe everything we read, everything we see on TV, or something just because some doctor said it. We have minds of our own. E-stim builds muscle mass. It works. I know because I've seen it. You know, book knowledge is all well and good, but it doesn't compare to real life experience.
.....................................
Don Quixote says:
As an example she cites her husband whose muscles only work while the machine he is using [a TENS unit] is turned on and cranked up.
..........................................
You should know that 40 is a low setting...it definately isn't cranked up. My husband doesn't have voluntary control, not even of a "twitch" as I stated earlier, however the e-stim stimulates his muscles to contract and build muscle mass, like spasms help to keep muscles from atrophying, from wasting away to nothing. I believe he wouldn't have regained as much as he has with his hands, if not for his TENS unit. He now has about 6 lbs of grip in his left hand and about 10 in his right. I believe you have to go after function, not just sit there and wait for it to come back. I mean, it might come back on it's own, but chances are it won't. What do you have to lose by trying? What do you have to lose by not trying? Just because an individual works hard and has a great attitude and does FES, etc isn't saying that they will be "cured", or that they will gain anything, but what will you gain if you don't try? It's been a little over 2 1/2 years since my husband's injury. We haven't given up. You're entitled to your opinion, but we disagree.
GOODBYE DON QUIXOTE... http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[Don Quixote]

Let's run through this again, very quickly. Findacure, you are exceedingly orthodox. You fall into the category of those who believe that all paralysis following spinal cord injury is due to nerve damage, you believe that all that is needed to strengthen a muscle is to 'force' it to contract, and you believe that something approved by the FDA according to Part 890, Physical Medicine Devices, subpart F, sec. 890.5850, Powered Muscle Stimulator (which rules out the use of electrochemistry), does this in a way that strengthens and re-educates the muscle and the nerve. Like all the others who have responded to these postings so far, including the moderators and Dr. Wise Young, you show no knowledge of the structure of muscle, what it is that is lost when the muscle atrophies, and what it takes to grow this protein back. Like Dr. Young, you too think that spasticity is driven by the nerves when, if a muscle is severely atrophic, the nerves cannot even cause it to twitch, and therefore spasticity cannot possibly be a nerve-related thing but, as was discovered in the 1930s, it is a result of blood chemistry. The implication is that flaccidity is a sign of loss of circulatory power. But this implication is lost on you. You are too orthodox. You ask, "What do you have to lose by trying?" I agree with the sentiment you are expressing here, but I disagree with what it is you are trying. If you're husband has recovered anything at all it is due to his trying, not to any FDA approved device he might use. Do you really want to continue trying? Try electrochemistry. Look at the website at galvanism.org Familiarize yourself with what is there. The equipment is not yet available, but will be by midsummer after it is manufactured. The only problem is that it is outlawed by the FDA. And it is cheaper then a TENS unit. All you need is the understanding of how to use it. Your husband has been hurt for 2 ½ years. If he started treating his muscles this summer with this device, he will be back on his feet in just under 8 years. Stick with TENS and FES and he will die in the chair trying. If your husband has recovered anything, anything at all, since the time of his neck injury, he is an excellent candidate for complete recovery. But the longer you wait, the longer it will take for him to recover since the body's muscles and organs deteriorate rapidly, so rapidly that the official word from the VA is that for each day of prolonged bed rest, three days of exercise are needed to recover.

Seneca, bodybuilders around the world might dabble in electrical stimulation for a short time, but, since it doesn't work (regardless of your claims from personal experience) none have ever remained with it TO THE EXCLUSION OF RESISTANCE EXERCISES. FES is one of the versions of electrotherapy that is scandalously promoted by the manufacturers of medical equipment alleged to build muscle without triggering biochemical changes, but merely by making a muscle contract. This is thoroughgoing crap. The muscle must be made to contract the same way the body makes it contract, if it is to be built. That means that nervous system trophism must be simulated. The only way to do this is with electrochemistry, the anode of the direct current delivering pulsed electrical fields to the neuromuscular junction. Anything else, all things approved by the FDA, is worthless. Despite this people like Christopher Reeve, and your own Wise Young, push FES, PEMS, EMS and all manner of FDA approved junk when even the FDA states that it has no evidence that any of the stuff actually works, that it has no way of verifying that any of the stuff works, and that all research so far on the subject has not come up with any conclusive evidence for the wide variety of claims made for it. All the FDA does is make sure it is safe. Electrochemistry is safe, but it is rough on the skin if not done properly, and can leave marks if one is careless. For this the FDA outlaws it.

Metronycguy, do you see the admission of Dr. Young that he too doesn't know jack about electrical stimulation. On the one hand he says body builders use it, and on the other he says it would be silly to use on the basis of its lack of 'efficiency'. Dr. Young doesn't know what he is talking about, and probably knows nothing of the difference between AC and DC in terms of electron behavior. He, along with John W. McDonald, Christopher Reeve's rehabilitation guru, push FES on you and others, but don't use it themselves because it is inefficient! My bet is he doesn't know squat about the structure of muscle and the changes in that structure as the muscle atrophies. These clowns stick to the dodge that paralysis of those with incomplete injuries is A LEARNING PROBLEM, and are incapable of questioning the issue of electrotherapy, electricity, and the electrical nature of the nerve impulse and nervous system trophism.

Snowman, you must discriminate between sports medicine and sports training. Electrotherapy is used, without consequence, in sports medicine, but no athlete uses it to train. Why not? Efficiency? Give me a break. How about sports medicine? If it works in sports medicine, why not in regular medicine? It was the conclusion of the orthopedists cited in the essay "Breakout Session ..." that appeared in my first post, that electrotherapy was useless. That sports medicine doctors use it is a result of their patients being willing to pay for it. It is also used on the handicapped, without effect. You don't 're-educate' muscle. That phrase is nonsensical. You re-educate neurons to fire in patterns. But you can't re-educate neurons if the muscle isn't healthy because you can't use those neurons on a muscle that won't contract because of severe atrophy. Citing William Prentice as authoritative is an easy out, as if 3rd year texts for the sports medicine professional were conclusive, and as if texts were never mistaken. What I am saying is that this particular 'rehabilitation technique' is bogus. Prentice's textbook was a report on what is used, not an evaluation of its effectiveness. Since your background is in sports medicine and sports training, name one athlete who uses e-stim exclusively and attributes his/her condition to its use.

I am amazed that the handicapped, the people most directly affected by the blindness and insularity of neuroscience, are the most fervent supporters of its charlatanry. But it has always been this way. You're all waiting for a miracle to be handed to you by a neuroscience that still teaches a version of the nerve impulse that models it based upon a nineteenth century, thermodynamic model of electricity in which electrons are replaced by hydrogen ions (protons), electricity is replaced by proticity. There is an appalling lack of skepticism amongst the handicapped that serves to perpetuate the benightedness of clinical neurology. Notice that your own Wise Young has absolutely nothing to say about whether advanced disuse atrophy might be the mechanism behind post-sci paralysis in some cases. He won't even entertain the issue. Why should he? He's complacent in the job security his level of knowledge allows, just like all the other paralysis researchers. They see no need to question fundamentals, calling instead for more money for even further inconsequential research into stem cells. Even when the cord is broken, if stem cells were to heal it, the person would still be paralyzed because of his muscles being weak. What say you to that, Wisey? Get a grip.

[Curt Leatherbee]

Mr. Quixote, it is quite obvious at this point that you are quite naive on this issue. I cannot see the point in even arguing with you over this issue. If I did not believe that FES worked, I would have never have worked for the company that manufactures the "FES bike". I use FES most everyday and have legs that look like those of an able bodied person even though I am paralyzed for the last 23 years from my upper chest down.

In addition to the benefits of building leg muscle bulk, the fes bike also builds up the cardio vascular system and is good for the knee joints as it keeps them free and moving rather than sitting all day sedentary in a wheelchair. The range of motion it provides is great therapy within itself, it is also good for circulation in the lower extremities.

FES has never been promoted as a "Cure" for Spinal Cord injury, It is simply a method to stay in shape until the day a cure comes.

I also take great offense at your accusations against Dr. Young. It is obvious to me and probabley everyone else reading this that you are a very bitter man, for whatever reason. I think it is very unfair of you to try and discount a therapy as useless that has helped out a great number of people. FES is not for everybody, but those that are candidates for using FES (paralyzed with the proper reflex arc necessary) can greatly benefit by it.

[antiquity]

Don, no personal attacks please.

To repeat what others have said, no one has suggested that FES can cure paralysis. My post addressed the use of FES as a means to increase tone, I made no statement regarding its role in reversing atrophy, two separate issues.

Here's a summary of a conversation Dr. Young had with Dr. Kern who's work suggests that FES can reverse severely atrophic muscles.

Dr. Helmut Kern from Wien (Vienna), Austria. He works in the same group as Milan Dimitrijevic. He used huge electrical currents, much much greater than those that are typically used for FES. This was because he found that one must use very intense trains of impulses from the surface of the skin to activate severely atrophic muscles. Please note that this is in humans with cauda equina lesions. He suggests that such stimulation can restore muscle in people as long as 25 years after injury although he did not present much data to support this statement. At the beginning of the symposium, I had asked Professor Giorgio Brunelli and the assembled clinicians whether a denervated muscle could be restored. Most of the people in the audience felt that a denervated muscle (that has undergone such severe atrophy that most of the muscle is connective tissue and fat) cannot be stimulated or restored. Dr. Kern therefore surprised everybody with his findings. On the other hand, I must point out the technical difficulties of the stimulator devices that he was using (he had to build the stimulators themselves). The amount of electrical energy that he used was truly enormous. Normal FES machines usually cannot deliver more thant 50-100 millijoules of electrical energy. Dr. Kern was using as much as 3 joules (30-100 times) more energy for his stimulus protocols, giving trains of stimuli. Many of the electrodes caused skin burns but he said that the electrical stimulation actually thickened the skin. By the way, such high currents would be very painful to people who have any preserved skin sensations and would cause tremendous spasms to people who have spinal cord injury. That is why the studies were done only in patients with peripheral nerve or cauda equina lesions. I discussed the issues with several of the people afterwards, including Reggie Edgarton (UCLA) and Michael Keith (Case Western) and they expressed some reservations about the safety parameters of such high currents. In order to reduce skin burns, the electrodes have cover a large surface area to minimize current density. The problem is that if the gel dries up a bit or the electrode does not get complete contact, it is very easy to get skin burns. I asked Dr. Kern whether he tried direct stimulation of the muscle, using implanted electrodes, which would cause less damage to the skin. However, he says that he tried direct muscle stimulation and found that the high currents can damage the muscles. We talked until 3 am one of the mornings trying to figure out a better way to stimulate the muscles. However, from the evidence that Dr. Kern shows (he had biopsies of the muscles before and after), it is possible to get completely atrophic muscles to regrow and bulk up again. Now that we know it can be done, it is time to work out the methods to do so safely.

Source (http://carecure.org/forum/showpost.php?p=73560)

[Snowman]

"Not even NASA, which admits that debilitation of flight crews from disuse is the biggest obstacle to manned exploration in the solar system, will have anything to do with electrotherapy despite the claims of doctors who urge it upon the handicapped for this very purpose, but don't use it on themselves."

Seems like they and other space agencies are studying its use......

NASA via SSB (http://www7.nationalacademies.org/ssb/21lsch6.html)
ESA (http://www.spaceflight.esa.int/file.cfm?filename=utildestpems)
CSA (http://www.space.gc.ca/asc/eng/csa_sectors/human_pre/cao/osm_ems.asp)

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/cool.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Eric Harness,CSCS
Project Walkâ„¢ (http://www.projectwalk.org)

[This message was edited by Snowman on 03-09-04 at 06:59 PM.]

[member412678]

Don Quixote,
There you go again, telling me what I "believe". Please stop doing that as you don't know me personally and you continue to put words in my mouth that I've not said. I don't know if you truly misunderstood, or if it's intentional on your part to misunderstand everyone.

I have an open mind, however, I don't appreciate you attacking anyone on a personal level, or your derogatory comments concerning Dr. McDonald and Dr. Young. When you attack people on a personal level, it does nothing to lend any credibility to you or anything that you say.

You made a quite a comment concerning my husband's chance of walking again if he uses this "device" for about 8 years. I don't put any stock in empty statements, but like I said, I have an open mind. I'll listen as long as you are respectful, and show common courtesy... otherwise, I'll go away from this topic. It's OK to have a different opinion about things. People are here to try to gain knowledge, share knowledge and to try to help each other. Or that's what I like to think.
About the FDA...Personally, I don't put a great deal of "faith" in them. They have approved killer drugs in the past, and are highly influenced by the powerful pharmaceutical companies who of course would prefer to push pills instead of cures. But let's not get off the subject. I don't claim to know it all. That's the first indication that someone doesn't know what they should, because they have a closed mind and refuse to "learn". You say I don't understand. Explain...Tell me what it is that you believe about the nervous system, muscles and electrochemistry instead of simply attacking FES which I believe is beneficial and necessary to my husband's health.

[Don Quixote]

Seneca, I am indebted to you not just for your comments, but for the conversation summary you included. Your comments will allow me to clarify an important point. I might add that I will try and refrain from personal attacks. In your comments you contrast tone with atrophy. Another posting by Mr. Leatherbee, who formerly was in the employ of the company that makes the FES bike and is so much infatuated with the device that he claims to use it 'most everyday', alludes to muscle mass as well. These are all wonderful terms and very subjective, very influenced by the desires of the observer. I prefer instead to consider the transmission electron microscopy that detects loss of muscle mass and disuse atrophy as the loss of cross-sectional area of the type II muscle fiber. FES has no effect on this whatsoever. Period.
Now let's get to the meat, the reported conversation between Kern and Young. Kern reports using 'huge electrical currents, much greater than those that are typically used for FES.' I say what is important is not the 'hugeness' of the current. You could turn up the power on the FES bike and it would still do nothing. What is important is the type of current, and the way it is delivered. What were Kern's 'intense trains of impulses made of, what made them intense? In an earlier post I said it would be nice to come across a neuroscientist who knew physics, but it seems that the two areas of study are incompatible. Kern measures the electrical energy of his device delivers in joules. Joules are a measure of work, not electrical energy, and, to the extent that joules are used as units of energy, the energy is expressed in calories or heat energy needed to accomplish that work. Kern doesn't know his electricity, but let's look closer now at his other observations. Maybe we can explain them without the obscuring glasses of the neuroscientist. But first I want to contrast denervation with atrophy. In the former case all nerve supply is lost to the muscle, and, using electromyography, we see what is called the reaction of denervation on the oscilloscope. But a severely atrophic muscle looking similarly wasted will not elicit this oscilloscopic activity It has not lost all its nerve supply, merely the protein that fills the membrane covering the type II muscle fiber. At the neuromuscular junction can be found at least 4 and as many as 8 nerve endings, only a few of which synapse with the cells that crank out the type II fiber. Eliminate all these nerve endings and you have denervation. Stop the firing at the ones that activate the type II fiber, and you have disuse atrophy.
Moving now to Dr. Kern's claims, I want to say that I too believe that muscles long paralyzed can be restored, if they are severely atrophic. And this is done by introducing an electrical field at the synapse of the once-non-firing (during the acute phase) nerve ending in the neuromuscular junction. The cell there is easily overloaded as it would be if one were healthy and pumping iron, but one doesn't need to be healthy or pumping iron for the affect. And the affect is the increased synthesis of the proteins that make up the type II fiber. I don't know what affect this would have on a denervated muscle.
Consider now Kern's observations. ". Many of the electrodes caused skin burns..." This is why the FDA ruled out the use of electrochemistry by limiting the amount of current passed to the not-so-'huge' one half milliampere for all marketable powered muscle stimulators. Electrical current is measured in amperes or coulombs per second, not joules. I spoke of this skin problem in an earlier posting here. What Dr. Kern didn't notice was that blistering would occur at the anode, while pitting occurred at the cathode. On the website www.galvanism.org (http://www.galvanism.org) you will find an essay from the journal Bioelectrochemistry in which Swedish researchers attribute these affects to excessive alkalinity and acidity at either of the poles, but, being neuroscientists, they mislabel the poles. The authors were investigating the astounding results the Chinese were getting in destroying benign and malignant tumors using direct current. Dr. Kern found that 'high currents' can damage the muscle, but he could not say how or why. To understand this you must understand the role of polarity in electrochemistry, and the application of electrochemistry to the body, ice and fire. Sure, the cathode (ice) can destroy, but its destruction can be severely limited through the use of a corroding cathode. But the anode (fire) can build, for it involves the introduction of electrochemical energy like that made available by mitochondria. One just needs to know how to use it, and the wonderful things claimed by Dr. Kern will become commonplace. "..from the evidence that Dr. Kern shows (he had biopsies of the muscles before and after), it is possible to get completely atrophic muscles to regrow and bulk up again. Now that we know it can be done, it is time to work out the methods to do so safely. " You'll never get this from the FES bike, or a neuroscience still in the 19th century with a thermodynamic approach to electricity.
Curt, please tell me where the studies are to support the claims you and your former employer make about this expensive device.
"I also take great offense at your accusations against Dr. Young." I made no accusations in my postings. I merely delineated the areas where Dr. Young is lacking in knowledge, and where he continues to be remiss if he wishes to posture as one concerned about 'cures' and rehabilitation. "It is obvious to me and probabley everyone else reading this that you are a very bitter man, for whatever reason." Not anymore, actually. I find it quite amusing sometimes to consider people like you who heatedly defend the very sciosophy that keeps them in a wheelchair. " I think it is very unfair of you to try and discount a therapy as useless that has helped out a great number of people." While there is little evidence to support this claim, one thing does stand out, your former employer benefits greatly from the sale of these devices that will someday be found in garages and landfills across the country.

[chick]

Sen,
The section you posted/quoted, only suggests that the potential may be there, using FES, but not currently, given "normal FES machines usually cannot deliver more thant 50-100 millijoules of electrical energy", much less than what Dr. Kern used and that any effects were with "enormous" amounts of energy, which have shown to be dangerous and possibly even harmful, from what was stated. This of course doesn't preclude the researches from continuing to develp means that enable positive results/benefits at lower currents for consumer use. One further thing: "He suggests that such stimulation can restore muscle in people as long as 25 years after injury although he did not present much data to support this statement." This always makes me skeptical and concerns are, people often overlook how critical this is, especial;ly coming from scientists who should know better than to make such blanket statements. If they are suggesting that there is a high probablity of restoration of muscles (for ex, but applies to whatever the study is on), then they should state it as such, with the data to support their statements.

Nevertheless, there is no conclusive evidence of significant benefits of electrical stim/FES. There's data supporting both advocates and nay sayers. Much of it depends on the specifics of what one is studying, doesn't it. Individual's might be recieving some benefit in using FES. Maybe they aren't significant benefits or restoring muscle function per se, but if there are noticeable (or even percieved) results- ie increased mass, and that helps to motivate a person to excercise harder, improve strength and conditiong of functioning muscles, then all the power to em. If it serves to simply improve one's appearance by increasing bulk to otherwise diminished muscles, then so be it. This can help improve one's confidence and self image, which can help personal drive and initiative to further improve health and care of one's body. Whatever the reasons, if there is no harm being done, through the use of such machines, then why shouldn't a person use them.

"Harm". Harm can also be in the form of being taken advantage of by profiteers, who will promise anything. So, as long as one makes a fully informed decision. That is their choice.

[Curt Leatherbee]

Here you are Don http://electrologic.com/biblio.htm

I will anxiously await the unveiling of your FES beating therapy.

[~Patrick~]

We know what Dr. Young's medical and research background is and hold him in high esteem. What is your background and what research, not articles, have you drawn this conclussion on FES? What is your relationship with the SCI world?

Thank You
~Pat~

T-10 complete
10/08/01

[Kaprikorn1]

Hey Don Quixote...How much do YOU make for selling one of these "galvanism" machines that you promise will make a complete walk in 8 years?

Maybe you should spend a little more on your web site.

Sell your crap somewhere else.

Kap

"It's not easy being green"

[Wise Young]

Don Quixote,

You are making some pretty sweeping statements, i.e. "joke of electrical stimulation", "unwitting charlatantry", and "ignorant neuroscientists". You appear to be basing your belief that electrotherapy (referring to surface stimulation with commercial devices) is useless because:

1. there is "no evidence that electrical stimulation has any effect on slowing or reversing atrophy"
2. "no body builder uses electrotherapy" and NASA has decided not to use FES to build or prevent muscle atrophy of astronauts in space.
3. "restoration of cross-sectional area of type II muscle can be accomplished only be strong physical exercise, the traditional resistance exercises, or the introduction of an electrical charge to the neuromuscular junction from which the type II fiber grows"
4. "...the devices... don't pass electrical charge", the FDA will not approve machines that pass more than "half of one thousandth of an ampere", "a prohibition that dates to 1855".

Let me discuss each of these points sequentially below.

You state that there is "no evidence that electrical stimulation has any effect on slowing or reversing atrophy". There is evidence that electrical stimulation of muscle can increase bulk and strength of paralyzed muscle, and even reverse muscle atrophy and osteopenia in bones of stimulated legs. There are of course many studies but I will cite only two. Baldi, et al. (1998) from Ohio State University published a study assessing whether unloaded FES isometric contractions and FES-cycle ergometry could prevent muscle atrophy. They tested 26 subjects who started <3 months after injury and found that 3 months of FES-cycle ergometry but not FES-isometric contractions prevented muscle atrophy and caused significant muscle hypertrophy after 6 months. Belanger, et al. [2000) from the University of Quebec studied the effects of FES and resistance training on osteopenia, stimulating the left quadriceps of 14 subjects with spinal cord injury, comparing these against the right quadriceps of the individuals and 14 unstimulated control subjects. They concluded that osteopenia of the distal femur and proximal tibia and the loss of strength of the quadriceps can be partly reversed by regular FES-assisted training.

You state that "no body builder uses electrotherapy". I had pointed out that this is a spurious argument because able-body builders can exercise muscles much more effectively through voluntary muscle activation against resistance. NASA probably chose to test voluntary muscle exercise in astronauts because it is more effective and efficient than FES. Furthermore, surface stimulation of muscles can improve neuromuscular function. Marqueste, et al., (2003) recorded muscle force, surface EMG, and M-wave of the rectus femoris and flexor digitorum brevis during a 6-week period of FES. Although the M-wave did not change after FES, they found that FES improved muscle function and activation.

I agree that surface FES stimulation with commercial devices does not increase type II fiber diameters. Greve, et al. (1993) showed the FES did not change diameters of type I, IIa, and IIb fibers although the number of type IIa fibers increased. Crameri, et al., (2002) showed FES increased vastus lateralis work output, cross-sectional area of the muscle, vascularization, and muscle enzymes but reduced the percentage of type II fibers and myosin heavy chains. Type I or slow-twitch fibers are responsible for tone and posture while type II or fast-twitch fibers are used for phasic movements. FES induced muscle hypertrophy therefore is likely to be due to increase in type I muscle fibers. On the other hand, there may be some benefits to transforming fast fatigable muscles towards slower, fatigue-resistant ones (Pette & Vrbova, 1999).

I agree that commercial devices do not pass enough current to activate denervated muscles. Kern, et al. (2002) showed that high currents are necessary and sufficient to activate denervated muscles. They were able to achieve tetanic contraction of such muscle with intense stimulation (pulse duration 30-50 msec, 16-25 Hz, and pulse amplitudes of up to 250 mA). They passed these enormous currents by using large electrode pads, reducing the current density. They estimated that this stimulation approach restored 2-4 million muscle fibers per quadriceps muscle of 3-4 years in muscles that had been denervated for 15-20 years. However, commercial FES surface stimulators can activate nerves that in turn activate muscles, as well as spinal reflexes that activate muscles. Although not particularly efficient, neuromuscular stimulation with surface electrodes can activate innervated muscles sufficiently to generate limb movements against resistance.

Wise.

References

• Baldi JC, Jackson RD, Moraille R and Mysiw WJ (1998). Muscle atrophy is prevented in patients with acute spinal cord injury using functional electrical stimulation. Spinal Cord. 36: 463-9. Department of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, Ohio State University, Columbus 43210, USA. Severe muscle atrophy occurs rapidly following traumatic spinal cord injury (SCI). Previous research shows that neuromuscular or 'functional' electrical stimulation (FES), particularly FES-cycle ergometry (FES-CE) can cause muscle hypertrophy in individuals with chronic SCI (> 1 year post-injury). However, the modest degree of hypertrophy in these already atrophied muscles has lessened earlier hopes that FES therapy would reduce secondary impairments of SCI. It is not known whether FES treatments are effective when used to prevent, rather than reverse, muscle atrophy in individuals with acute SCI. This study explored whether unloaded isometric FES contractions (FES-IC) or FES-CE decreased subsequent muscle atrophy in individual with acute SCI (< 3 months post-injury). Twenty-six subjects, 14-15 weeks post-traumatic SCI, were assigned to control, FES-IC, or FES-CE against progessively increasing resistance. Subjects were involved in the study for 3 or 6 months. Total body lean body mass [TB-LBM), lower limb lean body mass [LL-LBM), and gluteal lean body mass [G-LBM) were determined before the study, and at 3 and 6 months using dual energy X-ray absorptiometry [DEXA). Controls lost an average of 6.1%, 10.1%, 12.4%, after 3 months and 9.5%, 21.4%, 26.8% after 6 months in TB-LBM, LL-LBM and G-LBM respectively. Subjects in the FES-IC group consistently lost less lean body mass than controls, however, only 6 month G-LBM loss was significantly attenuated in this group relative to the controls. In the FES-CE group, LL-LBM and G-LBM loss were prevented at both 3 and 6 months, and TB-LBM loss was prevented at 6 months. In addition, FES-CE significantly increased G-LBM and LL-LBM after 6 months of training relative to pre-training levels. Within the control group, there was no significant relationship between LL-LBM loss [3 and 6 months) and the number of days between injury and baseline measurement. In summary, this study shows that FES-CE, but not FES-IC, training prevents muscle atrophy in acute SCI after 3 months of training, and causes significant hypertrophy after 6 months. The magnitude of differences in regionalized LBM between controls and FES-CE subject raises hopes that such treatment may indeed be beneficial in preventing secondary impairments of SCI if employed before extensive post-injury atrophy occurs.

• Belanger M, Stein RB, Wheeler GD, Gordon T and Leduc B (2000). Electrical stimulation: can it increase muscle strength and reverse osteopenia in spinal cord injured individuals? Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 81: 1090-8. Departement de Kinanthropologie, Universite du Quebec a Montreal, Canada. OBJECTIVE: To study the extent to which atrophy of muscle and progressive weakening of the long bones after spinal cord injury (SCI) can be reversed by functional electrical stimulation (FES) and resistance training. DESIGN: A within-subject, contralateral limb, and matching design. SETTING: Research laboratories in university settings. PARTICIPANTS: Fourteen patients with SCI (C5 to T5) and 14 control subjects volunteered for this study. INTERVENTIONS: The left quadriceps were stimulated to contract against an isokinetic load (resisted) while the right quadriceps contracted against gravity (unresisted) for 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, for 24 weeks. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bone mineral density (BMD) of the distal femur, proximal tibia, and mid-tibia obtained by dual energy x-ray absorptiometry, and torque (strength). RESULTS: Initially, the BMD of SCI subjects was lower than that of controls. After training, the distal femur and proximal tibia had recovered nearly 30% of the bone lost, compared with the controls. There was no difference in the mid-tibia or between the sides at any level. There was a large strength gain, with the rate of increase being substantially greater on the resisted side. CONCLUSION: Osteopenia of the distal femur and proximal tibia and the loss of strength of the quadriceps can be partly reversed by regular FES-assisted training.

• Marqueste T, Hug F, Decherchi P and Jammes Y (2003). Changes in neuromuscular function after training by functional electrical stimulation. Muscle Nerve. 28: 181-8. Institut Federatif de Recherches Jean Roche (IFR 11), Faculte de Medecine Nord, Universite de la Mediterranee (Aix-Marseille II), Boulevard Pierre Dramard, 13916 Marseille, France. We examined whether the neuromuscular function of rectus femoris (RF) and flexor digitorum brevis (FDB) in humans was modified after a 6-week training period of functional electrical stimulation (FES), and whether any effects persisted at the end of a 6-week post-FES recovery period. In both the stimulated and contralateral nonstimulated muscles, we recorded the muscle force, surface electromyogram, and M wave, and also measured the root mean square (RMS) and the median frequency (MF) during static contraction sustained until exhaustion at 60% of maximal voluntary contraction (MVC). FES was performed with symmetric biphasic pulses, with a ramp modulation of both the stimulation frequency and pulse duration. No changes in MCV and endurance time to exhaustion occurred in nonstimulated muscles, whereas a significant MVC increase occurred immediately after FES in RF (+14 +/- 5%) and FDB (+13 +/- 5%), these effects persisting 6 weeks after the end of FES. In FDB, FES also elicited a significant increase in endurance time to exhaustion (+18 +/- 7%). The M-wave characteristics never varied after FES, but a marked attenuation occurred in the MF decrease and the RMS increase measured at endurance time to sustained 60% MVC, especially in FDB, which contains the higher proportion of type II fibers. These data indicate that FES improves muscle function and elicits changes in central muscle activation. The benefits of FES were greater in FDB, which is highly fatigable, and persisted for at least a 6-week period.

• Greve JM, Muszkat R, Schmidt B, Chiovatto J, Barros Filho TE and Batisttella LR (1993). Functional electrical stimulation (FES): muscle histochemical analysis. Paraplegia. 31: 764-70. Department of Rehabilitation, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Functional electrical stimulation (FES) has been used in Brazil since 1989 to obtain functional improvement in paraplegic patients' orthostasis and locomotion. The aim of this paper is to evaluate the histochemical changes observed in the quadriceps femoris muscle following the use of FES. We studied four patients with traumatic spinal cord lesions at T4-10 level, Frankel A, all within 12-24 months postlesion. They were all submitted to FES using the following criteria: square-wave, 20-30 Hz frequency, pulses of 0.003 seconds, time of stimulation 5 seconds, resting interval 10 seconds. The stimulation was applied during 90 consecutive days, 30 minutes each time, twice daily. The interval between the stimulations was 6 hours. Quadriceps muscle biopsies were performed before and after the use of FES. We used ATPase technique for the histochemical analysis, where three different dying patterns can be observed for the three types of muscular fibres (I, IIa and IIb). The two samples from each patient were analysed measuring the fibres' diameters and their index of atrophy, and counting the total number of each type of fibre in each sample. The mean total number of fibres in each sample was 256 +/- 12.3. The results showed that the sizes of the three types of fibres were not modified with the use of FES; the number of type IIa fibres increased in a significant fashion, after using of FES.

• Crameri RM, Weston A, Climstein M, Davis GM and Sutton JR (2002). Effects of electrical stimulation-induced leg training on skeletal muscle adaptability in spinal cord injury. Scand J Med Sci Sports. 12: 316-22. Sports Medicine Research Unit, Department of Rheumatology, Bispebjerg Hospital, Copenhagen, Denmark. Neuromuscular electrical stimulation has grown in popularity as a therapeutic device for training and an ambulation aid to human paralyzed muscle. Despite its current clinical use, few studies have attempted to concurrently investigate the functional and intramuscular adaptations which occur after electrical stimulation training. Six individuals with a spinal cord injury performed 10 weeks of electrical stimulation leg cycle training (30 min d(-1), 3 d week(-1)). The paralyzed vastus lateralis muscle showed significant alterations in skeletal muscle characteristics after the training, indicated by an improvement in total work output (52-112 kJ; P < 0.05), an increase in fiber cross-sectional area [18 to 41 x 10[2) microm[2); P < 0.05), a reduction in the percentage of type IIX fibers [75% to 12%; P < 0.05), a decrease in myosin heavy chain IIx [68% to 44%; P < 0.05), an increase in capillary density [2-3.5 capillaries around fiber; P < 0.05) and increases in activity levels of citrate synthase [7-16 mU mg[-1) protein) and hexokinase [1.2-2.4 mU mg[-1) protein). This study showed that 10 weeks of electrical stimulation training of human paralyzed muscle induces concurrent improvements in functional capacity and oxidative metabolism.

• Pette D and Vrbova G (1999). What does chronic electrical stimulation teach us about muscle plasticity? Muscle Nerve. 22: 666-77. Faculty of Biology, University of Konstanz, Germany. The model of chronic low-frequency stimulation for the study of muscle plasticity was developed over 30 years ago. This protocol leads to a transformation of fast, fatigable muscles toward slower, fatigue-resistant ones. It involves qualitative and quantitative changes of all elements of the muscle fiber studied so far. The multitude of stimulation-induced changes makes it possible to establish the full adaptive potential of skeletal muscle. Both functional and structural alterations are caused by orchestrated exchanges of fast protein isoforms with their slow counterparts, as well as by altered levels of expression. This remodeling of the muscle fiber encompasses the major, myofibrillar proteins, membrane-bound and soluble proteins involved in Ca2+ dynamics, and mitochondrial and cytosolic enzymes of energy metabolism. Most transitions occur in a coordinated, time-dependent manner and result from altered gene expression, including transcriptional and posttranscriptional processes. This review summarizes the advantages of chronic low-frequency stimulation for studying activity-induced changes in phenotype, and its potential for investigating regulatory mechanisms of gene expression. The potential clinical relevance or utility of the technique is also considered.

• Kern H, Hofer C, Modlin M, Forstner C, Raschka-Hogler D, Mayr W and Stohr H (2002). Denervated muscles in humans: limitations and problems of currently used functional electrical stimulation training protocols. Artif Organs. 26: 216-8. Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of Electrostimulation and Physical Rehabilitation, Department of Physical Medicine, Wilhelminenspital, Wien, Austria. helmut.kern@phys.wil.magwien.gv.at. Prior clinical work showed that electrical stimulation therapy with exponential current is able to slow down atrophy and maintain the muscle during nonpermanent flaccid paralysis. However, exponential currents are not sufficient for long-term therapy of denervated degenerated muscles (DDMs). We initiated a European research project investigating the rehabilitation strategies in humans, but also studying the underlying basic scientific knowledge of muscle regeneration from satellite cells or myoblast activity in animal experiments. In our prior study, we were able to show that high-intensity stimulation of DDMs is possible. At the beginning of training, only single muscle twitches can be elicited by biphasic pulses with durations of 120-150 ms. Later, tetanic contraction of the muscle with special stimulation parameters (pulse duration of 30-50 ms, stimulation frequency of 16-25 Hz, pulse amplitudes of up to 250 mA) can improve the structural and metabolic state of the DDMs. Because there are no nerve endings for conduction of stimuli, large-size, anatomically shaped electrodes are used. This ensures an even contraction of the whole muscle. Contrary to the current clinical knowledge, we were able to stimulate and train denervated muscle 15-20 years after denervation. The estimated amount of muscle fibers that have to be restored is about 2-4 million fibers in each m. quadriceps. To rebuild such a large number of muscle fibers takes up to 3-4 years. Despite constant stimulation parameters and training protocols, there is a high variation in the developed contraction force and fatigue resistance of the muscle during the first years of functional electrical stimulation.

[This message was edited by Wise Young on 03-10-04 at 07:12 AM.]

[antiquity]

Don, thanks for your measured response.


Sen,
The section you posted/quoted, only suggests that the potential may be there, using FES, but not currently, given "normal FES machines usually cannot deliver more thant 50-100 millijoules of electrical energy", much less than what Dr. Kern used and that any effects were with "enormous" amounts of energy, which have shown to be dangerous and possibly even harmful, from what was stated.

Chick, I know. http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif I posted that in response to Don's statement re FES could not reverse atrophy when in fact it can. Granted, Dr. Kern's work isn't practical or applicable because of the extreme and dangerous levels of current used and the high risk of muscle and tissue damage but nevertheless, he was able to elicit a response from muscles that were previously thought to be unresponsive to FES. Severely atrophied muscles can be restored, the challenge was to find the appropriate level of stimulation which just wasn't achieveable given the limitations of commercially available FES machines. The results of his research challenged the current dogma so for that reason alone, it's important. Whether it leads to advances in the field depends, I suppose, on how relevant it's considered.

[This message was edited by seneca on 03-10-04 at 12:54 AM.]

[This message was edited by seneca on 03-10-04 at 12:58 AM.]

[betheny]

Don Quixote-

You're tilting at windmills again.

Since we can't exercise the muscles the way we would prefer, we do it the passive way. It's the only game in town. Even if all we develop is inferior type I muscle tissue it serves to: pad our bony butts,(lowering the risk of pressure sores), fill out our spindly legs, (vanity is not a bad thing), keep our joints from freezing up, give our underworked hearts a challenge,(heart disease rates are high in sci circles), stimulate circulation to the extremities (so our toes don't fall off), makes us tired (so we can sleep), decrease osteoporosis (so our bones don't just melt). I have a feeling you haven't considered all of these horrors or you would know why we try.

I join the others in wondering what your connection to the sci community might be. One other thing...do you have a better idea?

C5/6 incomplete, injured Aug. 2000

[chasb]

I feel the future in e-stim will be Bions.

[member412678]

Don Quixote,

Dr. Young has many times answered questions that I and others have had on these forums(and I really appreciate that Dr. Young). Many times, the things he is trying to explain are complicated, but he manages to convey issues in a manner in which I can understand.
I still am unable to understand why you are so against FES, and you didn't ackowledge my direct question to you to explain whatever it is you are advocating.
I did a little research and found some studies in which FES reversed muscle atrophy...here's one:
Belanger M, Stein R. B., Wheeler G.D., Gordon T., Leduc B (2000)
Electrical Stimulation, can it increase muscle strength and reverse osteopenia in spinal cord injured individuals?
Arch. Phys. Med. Rehab. 80, 1090-1098
Abstract: OBJECTIVE:
To study the extent to which atrophy of muscle and progressive weakening of the long bones after spinal cord injury can be reversed by functional electrical stimulation and resistance training.
DESIGN: A with-in subject, contralateral limb and matching design
SETTING: Research laboratories in university settings
PARTICIPANTS: 14 patients with SCI (C5 to T5) and 14 control subjects volunteered for this study.
INTERVENTIONS: The left quadriceps were stimulated to contract against an isokinetic load (resisted) while the right quadriceps contracted against gravity(unresisted) for 1 hour a day, 5 days a week, for 24 weeks.
MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Bone mineral density (BMD) of SCI subjects was lower than that of controls. After training, the distal femur and proximal tibia had recovered nearly 30% of the bone lost, compared with the controls. There was no difference in the mid-tibia or between the sides at any level. There was a large strength gain, with the rate of increase being substantially greater on the resisted side.
CONCLUSION: Osteopenia of the distal femur and proximal tibia and the loss of strength of the quadriceps can be partly reversed by regular FES-assisted Training.
.............................................
This is only one study. From everything that I've read, and our own personal experience, it appears my husband is doing the right thing. If you disagree, once again I invite you to explain. I also am curious to know if you have a spinal cord injury, or a family member that is injured and how it is you know that what you are recommending is better than FES. Is it from personal experience? What is your expertise? I mean it's obvious you know the terminology of electricity and muscles, but anyone can use big words. As for the website you mentioned...why should I believe that versus everything else that I have read? As I stated to begin with, there are many different views and contradictory issues regarding SCI. What about people that have had a stroke? Forced-use training is done to re-educate the muscles...right? FES is just one means of doing so for people that have a spinal cord injury. Once again, I'm not claiming FES is a cure. I don't claim to have found one.

[This message was edited by hope2findacure on 03-10-04 at 09:22 AM.]
I forgot to mention, in my reading I came across something that said Type II muscle fibers are the ones that respond to training...I found this on a weight training, body building website. However, a person with big muscles is not necessarily as strong or stronger than a person without big huge muscles. A strong muscle and a big muscle are two different things. Body builders know that size and endurance are two completely different things.

[This message was edited by hope2findacure on 03-10-04 at 09:48 AM.]

[.]

Don,

When will the "Coming Soon" portion of the website be completed? Also, there is no contact info listed. under most cirucumstances, this would be a red flag for me. I'd think if you wanted to promote this device, for whatever reason it is you do, you would have made info on it easily accessible to those who might show interest via your post here. I also think you would have made yourself easily accessible through that website. Third, any good salesman knows, you do not sell a product by critizing another product, but rather by praising your own. soooo...it light of these things that come to mind as I read your posts, i must say, and no offense intended here, i'm a bit sceptical of your motives and this device. perhaps you should have made your announcement after the website was completed. the air of mystery conveyed here makes me leery. it may not be your intention to be a mystery. i'm not accusing you of anything here, other than a lack of information on something you seem to want to convince us here is useful. So, no harm intended, just expressing my thoughts. I'm interested in such as this, just i've found in life that when someone appears to be hiding something, i.e. identity, contact info, etc., they usually are. not say YOU are TRYING to hide something, just this whole situation makes it APPEAR that you are. Could you explain more, give up more info on who you are and why you want to promote this device? thank you.

[This message was edited by Blundy on 03-10-04 at 10:37 AM.]

[Andy]

I really dont have time to examine all the minutia of Don's theory, so I did my usual skimming over what was presented. One thing caught my eye, Don's statement of the relevence of reflex arcs as quoted here:

"Apparently Dr. Young still believes that spasticity is a result of the firing of reflex arcs."

I would be curious how Don would explain the following: Last night when I was in the shower, I noticed quite a bit of spasticity in my left leg and hips, where there normally are trace amounts while doing the same activity. I was sitting there watching what was going on kind of puzzled why this was happening. Maybe I was sitting too long? A pressure releaf didnt fix that. After about 3 minutes of this, I finally noticed that hot water leaking from the hot water faucet was pouring out onto my big toe on my left leg. After I moved my foot, the spasticity stopped. I would be curious how this would be explained if there was no validity to the currently believed function of a neuromuscular reflex arc.

[Don Quixote]

Andy, I said that there is no way an alleged 'reflex arc,' that is, an afferent impulse arcing in the cord to become an efferent to make the muscle twitch, could act upon a severely atrophic muscle, and that therefore the spasticity of the handicapped is due to blood chemistry or LOCAL CONDITIONS. You specified what those local conditions were, hot water on your toes. Consider the likening of the cathode to ice, and the anode to fire. The anode triggers far stronger contractions in the muscle then the cathode because the anode is what is called cholinergic, that is, it works in conjunction with the neurotransmitter acetylcholine, while the cathode is termed adrenergic since it triggers the secretion of adrenalin and noradrenalin. Consider, you touch something very hot and your arm jerks back quite quickly, yet when you touch something extremely cold and just as damaging to tissue, your response is much slower. Now eliminate the neural inputs from the brain. Your body or limb will still respond DIRECTLY to the hot, harmful stimulus far more violently then it will if you put your leg in ice water or liquid nitrogen. Reflex arcs were the invention of Sir Charles Sherrington who codified them in a publication called Reflex Activity of the Spinal Cord in 1906. Like the Bell-Magendie Law, the one which states that the dorsal horn cells of the spinal cord are for sensation while the ventral horn cells are for motor activity, the idea that there are such things as reflex arcs has been passed down as knowledge in neurology circles not because it is true but because of the socio-political traditions of that field. The Bell-Magendie law was based on the vivisection of dogs done in the 1820s and 1830s. It has been upheld as doctrine, like reflex arcs, not because of any clinical value it might have, for it has none. It is not coincidence that the clinical poverty of neuroscience is co-extensive with the institutionalization of these alleged facts. In 1983 Sir Peter Medawar, Nobel laureate in medicine for his work in immunology, and philosopher and historian of science, noted in his essay "Osler's Razor," that neurology was into its second century of clinical inconsequence, and historically focused on diagnosis, never treatment. The Razor part was an allusion to William of Occam, known for Occam's Razor, which said that explanation was preferred which depended upon the fewest assumptions. The Osler part was for William Osler, the founder of 'scientific medicine' at Johns-Hopkins at the end of the 19th century who introduced the Hippocratic Oath to medicine. The oath was to discourage doctors from causing more harm in their attempts to minister to the injured and diseased. Osler became the founder of what became known as the 'school of therapeutic nihilism', called that because there was nothing that the new scientific medicine could do for treatment except set bones and excise tumors.

Blundy, I am not trying to sell a product. I am trying to sell an idea. I wish I could say when the coming soon portions of the website will be finished. I am having the outlawed machines manufactured overseas, and will have them available at cost plus shipping and handling when I receive them in 3 or four months. I wanted to wait until then before I started attracting attention to the site so that I could equip those who were interested. For years the dissemination of this information and the practice of what I call 'galvanic revivification' was impeded by the lack of equipment so that others could try it. I have hired engineers to come up with the plans and drawings needed by a manufacturer. Until now I have worked with machines I have made myself but which I had not desire to create one-at-a-time to meet the meager demand. Since I have already gotten one person out of a wheelchair and he has gotten others interested, I decided it was time to throw what little money I have into the pot. What awaits on the web page is complete instructions on how to use the machine safely since the untrained can cause minor damage to the skin. I hope to have a tutorial on the role of electrochemistry from the origins of life to the present also on the web, and it may be there by late next week. This tutorial alone, without the text you will find in the Academic's Corner, will make it clear why direct current stimulation has the affects it does since it will make clear the nature of bioenergetics and the pressures which acted upon living organisms to develop what is called gastrulation (digestion) to capture energy. As for who I am and my qualifications, see the essay on the website that deals with the development of the theory of 'galvanic revivification.'

Hoe2findacure, thank you for the study citation. Look closely at it. It is done by doctors of physical medicine who talk about stimulation of muscle to contraction using FES. There were no biopsies done to measure the increase of cross-sectional are of the type II muscle fiber. In the conclusion it is stated that 'loss of strength of the quadricep can be partly reversed by regular FES-assisted Training', yet nothing is said about how the strength of a paralyzed limb is measured. Instead we are told about how osteopenia, the loss of bone mass, is affected in the lower leg. The study is sloppily done, so sloppily that it is worthless. Its conclusions might warm the heart of a salesman of FES equipment, but whatever minimal affects it may have had could easily be attributed, as with your husband, to the effort he made, not to the equipment. Note that the manufacturers of FES equipment do not tout it for restoring bone density, and, once again, the experiments were done on the handicapped, not the healthy. If the equipment did what its researchers claim, then NASA would be first in line to use it since osteopenia is, like disuse atrophy, a really big problem for the astronaut even if he exercises. The handicapped are being used as test animals, and the results are nowhere near what one should see if, as Dr. Kern suggests in the posting by Seneca yesterday, direct current were used to restore the type II muscle fiber.
As for my background experience, read the essay cited to Blundy above on the discovery of galvanic revivification. With regard to stroke, there is absolutely no excuse for its resulting in motor impairment except that the neurologists, not having a clue about the electrochemical nature of the nervous system, can do nothing to maintain muscles during the acute phase, and dismiss all resulting motor impairment as a symptom of enduring brain damage when the actual problem is disuse atrophy which advances during the acute phase.
Your observations on muscle size and strength are perceptive. Yes, the type II fibers respond to training, and it is their response that should be measured by biopsies, not bogus definitions of 'strength' as observed by an optimistic doctor of physical medicine. When a muscle atrophies it first becomes larger, puffier, then it sags, and takes on a wasted look. A healthy muscle is a dense muscle, one that will sink in water rather than float. I've seen lots of people with big, weak muscles who floated easily, and I've seen people with small, powerful muscles who would struggle to stay afloat.

Seneca, I was amused by the claims of whoever's post you edited that spoke of Dr. Kern's 'extreme and dangerous levels of current.' These extreme and dangerous levels were discussed by Dr. Young and some of his colleagues after the reported conversation, and it would have been a riot to have been a fly on the wall during these discussions. What was so charming was these experts, whose opinions and council are sought by people like yourself, demonstrated stunning ignorance as to how electrical energy is measured. I discussed this yesterday. Until they familarize themselves with the language and physics of electricity and electromagnetism, I suggest you relegate their advice about the wonders of FES and the dangers of galvanic current to the trash. Keep in mind that charlatanry is defined as the making of money on claims to knowledge that are not true, whether or not the charlatan knows this.

Dr. Young, I have been waiting to hear from you again. Let's look at the studies you cite to support the idea that electrical stimulation can increase the cross-sectional area of the type II muscle fiber without passing current, without protein synthesis in the muscle, without affecting biochemistry, something only possible when current is passed. First we'll consider Baldi et al. Oh!? I don't see the results of any biopsies on the type II muscle fiber! But I do see that FES-isometric contractions did not prevent atrophy. Again, no biopsies. How was hypertrophy and atrophy measured? By a tape measure? By water displacement? Did the muscles become usable? I'm sorry. This study doesn't cut it. It or studies like it have been done in the past, with the same conclusion. This study will be done again and again and again and again, always without consequence. This is the story of neuroscience. Let's look at the other study.
You precede it with the fatuous argument about efficiency and effectiveness of voluntary exercises over electrical stimulation. How are these terms defined? What does it mean to be a more efficient or more effective exercise? We're talking science here, not sanctimony and the appeal to authority. Marqueste et al. recorded muscle force? No biopsies? "...they found that FES improved muscle function and activation." As indicated by what parameters? Did the muscle become usable? This study is also useless.
"I agree that surface FES stimulation with commercial devices does not increase type II fiber diameters." That's all you have to say. The discrimination between fast and slow twitch fibers serves only to obscure some important things. I ask you now, are slow twitch fibers those of smooth muscle or striated muscle? The fast and slow twitch thing makes no sense to me. What is the twitch? You even say, "On the other hand, there may be some benefits to transforming fast fatigable muscles towards slower, fatigue-resistant ones (Pette & Vrbova, 1999)." Do you mean to say that these fibers can be transformed from fast to slow twitch? What is this twitch thing? Smooth muscle is known to have electrical synapses which maintain cytoplasmic continuity between all of the muscle cells at which the electrical synapses form gap junctions. I insist this same arrangement is true of striated muscle, and that the type II fibers, both a and b, are what make up this system of electrical synapses. The type II fiber doesn't twitch, but conducts the nerve impulse, once it crosses the synapse via a dumping of acetylcholine, out to the individual muscle cells that do the actual contracting. It is this system of electrical synapses which amplify the power of the nerve impulse according to the equations of electricity governing resistance, conductor cross sectional area, and the definition of electrical power (P=IW). But these same equations are not available to the neuroscientists who see ion flow as I in V=IR rather than R, as a physicist would. But you would know nothing of this. It isn't taught in medical school. The orthodox treatment of muscles and fiber types has been around for a long time, and is highly respected amongst muscle physiologists. It does absolutely nothing for patients, being instead like the Bell-Magendie Law or the theory of reflex arcs.
At last, something to fasten onto, your discussion of Kern and electricity. Current strengths needed to restore muscle by electric charge passed transcutaneously do not need to be any greater than 30 mamp. Depth of penetration is controlled by voltage, which never has to exceed 90 volts DC. This is not great, it is not dangerous, it is not permitted by the FDA. You must discriminate between atrophy and denervation.. Finally, pulses introduced in this manner are superior in efficiency and speed to any form of resistance exercise, being able to overload a muscle and trigger growth in one second at 900 Hz if delivered to the neuromuscular junction.
In the Greve study we see, "The two samples from each patient were analysed measuring the fibres' diameters and their index of atrophy, and counting the total number of each type of fibre in each sample. The mean total number of fibres in each sample was 256 +/- 12.3. The results showed that the sizes of the three types of fibres were not modified with the use of FES.
The restoration of muscle atrophic and paralyzed for a year takes around three years to restore to a functional level, exercising every other day. Let's look at the Crameri study, done in Denmark. ."Six individuals with a spinal cord injury performed 10 weeks of electrical stimulation leg cycle training>" Ten weeks! That's not enough time if these people have been hurt for over 3 weeks to restore muscle function lost to disuse. What did they find out? "The paralyzed vastus lateralis muscle showed significant alterations in skeletal muscle characteristics after the training, indicated by an improvement in total work output (52-112 kJ; P &lt; 0.05), an increase in fiber cross-sectional area [18 to 41 x 10[2)..." Work output? These muscles were usable after ten weeks? I don't think so. The increase in cross-sectional area of fibers is interesting, but the authors say nothing about the type of current used, or what fibers increased in cross-sectional area. They do say, "This study showed that 10 weeks of electrical stimulation training of human paralyzed muscle induces concurrent improvements in functional capacity and oxidative metabolism." Functional capacity? After ten weeks? Again, I don't think so. I can believe improved oxidative metabolism, however.
The Kern study is revealing. He worked on denervated, flaccid muscles, however. However, he uses biphasic pulses, not monophasic, so he wasn't using electrochemistry even if the current strength was 250 mamp. Biphasic means he switched the poles back and forth with each pulse. Furthermore, ". Because there are no nerve endings for conduction of stimuli [the muscles were denervated], large-size, anatomically shaped electrodes are used. This ensures an even contraction of the whole muscle". And this is not how the body works. This study did not involved the simulation of nervous system trophism, and so is irrelevant to what we are talking about here. You're just throwing crap at me now rather than trying to understand the issues.

[.]

thank you for answering my questions Don

[~Patrick~]

I guess I dont get a reply

T-10 complete
10/08/01

[Wise Young]

Don, where is your data? Wise.

[member412678]

DQ,
As you know, one person doesn't make a study. How do you know it's your machine that got this person out of the wheelchair as you claimed? Lots of people get out of the wheelchair.
I would have to know all of the details of their injury....Asia level? Incomplete/complete?
Motor/Sensory level(of injury)?
Any funcion or sensory below injury level at all and if so what exactly?
How long before they began to regain any function at all? Could they even wiggle a toe?(this one is important, as we've found it's the key to the people that end up walking...they can usually wiggle a toe within the first 6 months or so after injury)
Chronic SCI/How long injured?
Details of the use and progress with your machine?
Most importantly, what proof do you have that it was your machine that worked? Is it any more or less than the proof we have with FES which is the results that we can see?

[nandavis15]

Don Quixote, I think anyone who lives with a spinal cord injury or loves someone with SCI is always looking for help in the form of a better quality of life, partial, or total cure and that we are all open to these things. I think where you started off on the wrong foot is the negative, attacking manner in which you approached the subject of FES and our very respected and loved Wise Young.This approach makes one skeptical to what you are saying. If, indeed, you have a better product than we are all willing to listen with open minds if approached in a professional, non-defensive manner.

I have been in a chair for 25 years and involved with the original FES research.I have been using FES for 20 + years. I am as healthy or healthier than most women my age (43). I have had many people ask me why I am in the chair because nothing looks wrong with me. I was at an airport once and an employee came over to ask me if I would get out of the airport chair because they needed it for someone who couldn't walk.

If you have a product that can do all that and more than I anxiously await it's debut. Pleas keep us informed. Also, please educate us in a much less defensive way so that we may all work together to attain a common goal- curing SCI.

BTY, I have just started something odd after riding my ERGYS FES bike, maybe you could explain why it is occurring. After riding my usual 2- 30 minute sessions, I shut off the bike and my legs continue to pedal on their own in the same manner as when they are stimulated by the computer. I can't help but think that this must be something good happening and if it is, I truly believe it is from exercising with my FES bike.

Thanks Don for respecting us and I, too, would like to know a little bit about your background, etc. I anticipate a response, Nan

[Don Quixote]

Nandavis15, in order that the hypothesis I am putting forth be understood as something more than an addition to the accepted wisdom, I need to point out where that accepted wisdom is flawed. This takes an examination of history for we need to know how we got to this point, this accepted wisdom that seems to do nothing to even slightly improve our conditions. The idea that the nervous system is electrochemical, as commonsensical as it may seem, is not what the current knowledge is. That is why Dieter Walz, editor of the journal Bioelectrochemistry, upon reading the abstract to an article I wanted to submit, called this idea 'really revolutionary.' The two reviews I received, [one of which, with the response to Dr. Felix T. Hong, Md., Ph., of Wayne State University, the reviewer, is on the web page] recommended the article not be accepted for publication. I never expected it would; what I was looking for was peer review, and Dr. Hong wrote a wonderful and revealing, 15 page criticism of the paper, and asked for a point-by-point rebuttal.
In a post yesterday I said I was not pushing a product; that I was trying to advance an idea, one which would be of far greater benefit to the spinal cord injury community when practiced than anything available, whether one's injury was complete or incomplete, whether the weakness followed from stroke, concussion, or spinal injury. I am suggesting, in fact, that if the muscles of the handicapped are restored, and if the muscles of the injured are maintained as soon as they leave the emergency room, then there will be far fewer people in wheelchairs, and many who rise up from them over the years. But this cannot be done with anything approved by the FDA whose regulations prohibit the use of electrochemistry in powered muscle stimulators.
About your observations, I would like to know for how long your legs 'pedal on their own', whether this is due to any effort on your part, whether you can prolong the time when this is happening, and if the extensor power stroke from your leg on the pedal is accompanied by a simultaneous flexion of the opposite leg. Otherwise this could be due to a flywheel effect exerted by the gearing of your machine, and if this is the case we are next left to explaining why this was not observed before. Its previous non-observation could be attributed to its not happening, or your not actually noticing it.

Hope2findacure, the person's name is Clayton Dixon, a machine gunner on a riverboat in Nam in an earlier life. He was a victim of a motor vehicle accident which caused a neck fracture at the C4-5 level. He spent 8 months at the VA hospital in Palo Alto, California, and was told he was a functional quadriplegic, and that arrangements could be made for him at a disabled veterans home in the desert near Barstow. He heard of me through a cocktail waitress at a bar, a friend of mine. We got in touch, I explained what was involved, he submitted, I taught him how to do it himself after he noticed his ability to open his left hand and grip things improved markedly over the course of a month, to the point where he could actually manipulate the electrode itself as he did the treatment. Three months later he was walking independently, though feebly. He moved away using one of my old machines that I made and which was of poor quality. He recently received one of the prototypes I am seeking to have manufactured. If you want more particulars, I can give you his phone number. When he returned to the VA for a follow-up exam to determine the amount of money he would be receiving as a veteran for his disability, the therapists who worked there were amazed at is recovery, and asked him what he had been doing. He told them about me, and they wanted to hear no more. They already know me in Palo Alto, and how I insist that what they are doing can be marvelously supplemented with the use of direct current. I was told that nobody uses direct current since people don't like the strangeness of its feel.
I am awaiting quotes for the production of the machine from several companies. What I hope to do is enlist people in a sort of internet-fired, grass roots bit of experimentation, people who have the perseverance and the fire to go beyond the medical community which has failed them and others for over a century. What will be on the web site, in addition to what's on there now, will be, as I noted earlier, a tutorial on electrochemistry and its role in life. This tutorial will explain the field of bioenergetics, and offer the theoretical justification for the use of the device. In addition will be links to where the device can be obtained at production cost plus shipping and handling. Finally, there will be information and instruction on why your machine does what it does, circuit diagrams so you can have the machine made yourself, and downloadable videos showing how to do the exercise and what to watch for, where to stimulate, what to look for as the muscle grows stronger. It is important to know your equipment and how to use it. You should first do this on yourself before doing it on others who cannot do it to themselves because of no control of the hands. The longer from the day of injury, the longer it takes the muscle to be restored, and so this takes a commitment, in some cases, that could go on for a decade or more. The wonderful thing is that muscles that can be used grow stronger so that, in effect, this is an exercise program that even the healthy can use, and will become part of a weekly routine of self-maintenance for anyone interested in fitness and health. There is much more to it, but, until you understand bioenergetics, the claims made about the affects on chronic and degenerative disorders, especially those that appear with aging, seem a bit rosy and overstated.
You write, "Most importantly, what proof do you have that it was your machine that worked? Is it any more or less than the proof we have with FES which is the results that we can see?" Proof is a mathematical notion. What you mean is evidence. But here you prejudice your case by saying that what you see are results, thereby assuming that the evidence of change was triggered by the machine's intervention rather than the results coming from the effort it takes to use the machine. For example, in the case of Nan, above, she told of using her machine twice a day for twenty years. She's obviously a very active person with the muscles she can use, but has the machine ever restored the use of any muscle, or just changed its appearance? Remember, strong muscles are dense muscles. When a person's paralyzed muscles appear to bulk up but still are useless, the first thing to check is their weight.

Dr. Wise, where is your data? The studies you sent were almost useless when not irrelevant. You claim FES works. Show me the data. One study you sent actually said that FES DOES NOT INCREASE THE CROSS SECTIONAL AREA OF THE TYPE II FIBER, WHETHER A OR B. And this is what I have been saying all along. All my arguments are based upon the data that is relevant, and that is in the texts. This issue goes deeper then you can imagine, and, in this regard I urge you to consider my letters to Dieter Walz and Felix T. Hong, especially with regard to the issue of the accepted model of voltaic cells and how this perpetuates the flawed practice of putting the ground, when cell membrane voltages are measured, external to the cell rather than inside of it.

[PN]

I have benefited from using an EMS machine since 1988. It is the only technology that works for me at this point in time. It certainly does stop muscle atrophy for myself but it does not help with real return of function. It improves circulation and helps to decrease spasms along with tone.

Q, I believe you cannot stop science and technology. I am trying to get a mental image of what this technology you are involved in looks like. Can you provide us with a picture, along with and illustration?

PN

[nandavis15]

DQ, thanks for the information. I will eagerly await more news at the galvanism website. In reply to your comments on my observations I will let you know that this pedaling on my own has happened 3 times in the last 2 weeks. The range of time pedaling on my own was 1/2 hour to 1 hour with each time stopping it because it was getting late. I totally disconnected myself from any power source to eliminate the possibility of current spillover. My legs contracted in the same manner as the they do when the computer stimulates them. It definitely was simultaneous flexion of the opposite leg. I even stopped several times during the last two runs to see if it would start up again and it did each time once I gave it a little push start. This was definitely not momentum as my FES unit is pretty hard to push, electrical current spillover or spasms. It was not something that had happened before or anything inadvertantly unnoticed. My 12 year old daughter has witnessed each time in amazement asking me if I am doing it on my own which I was not.

[nandavis15]

DQ, FYI, I don't ride 2x's a day. I ride anywhere from 3-4 hours a week at 1 hour a hook-up. I do work and have 3 kids and use my standing frame or I probably would work out more often!

[nandavis15]

DQ, I guess I should read everything thoroughly before having to post 3 times but just wanted to mention that my legs are of very normal size and I am 5'8" and weigh 125 pounds (I was weighed on Dec. 2, 2003) and my pants still fit so I have to say that I disagree that FES muscle bulk is weight gain. Also, I am using my FES bike much more religiously in the last year than in the last 20 years. I didn't use it during 3 nine month pregnancies and as much when the kids were young. Now that they are older I have a little more time to myself. I think what is going on is because of the intense use of FES lately.

[ScottS]

while DQ's methods to promote his views may not be the best way to achieve the support of others, i would like to back up what he is saying. he mentioned Clayton Dixon. i did the majority of my rehab at VA PaloAlto along with Clay from July-December '02. as a fairly incomplete quad, Clay couldn't walk w/o a walker and a spotter, and could only manage 20-40 yards at a time. i'm still in contact w/ Clay, and he is ecstatic about the improvement he's had since using DQ's device. i cannot wait to try this device because whenever i talk to Clay (who i consider a close friend) he tells me all about his improvements.
i know this thread has a lot of readers upset w/ DQ, but there are a few things i can attest to that may or may not help. 1st, he does have a SCI that he sustained many years ago (i don't feel it is my place to specify more than that because i have not asked his permission to do so). second, his intentions are not for profit. these devices are made from a list of materials that can be purchased from radio shack, but assembly and packaging them in an efficient manner is difficult. Finally, DQ is an intelligent man and i too find it difficult to comprehend how electrochemistry works when he explains it. but the basic principle of how to apply the treatment and electricity causing muscles to contract is similar to the other electrotherapy techniques used by everyone. he's explaining how his therapy works on the levels of physics, chemistry, electricity, biology, etc, etc. i guarantee that if someone tried to explain FES or the other therapies on those levels i'd be equally confused.
HOWEVER, like a few others posted, it's worth a shot to try it. that's the reason people are trying FES, TENS, etc. Just because you don't like his manner of promoting this therapy, don't discount the therapy! some people have found that FES works for them, some find it doesn't. same thing goes for TENS therapy. how can you find out whether DQ's therapy works if you don't try it? no matter what therapy comes out, there will always be someone who says it doesn't work. as long as you're careful and it doesn't hurt you, why not give it a shot?

[Lindox]

Don Q.
I read the site..on galvanic revivication.
Interesting.
I couldn't find the apparatus used. Could
you direct on this?

Has any apparatus of this type been presented to the FDA?

The theory used appears to have been around for ages. Why haven't the believers and promoters of this theory done any of the required data studies to promote this innovation?

Might be neurosciences promote as you say ineffective electrical stimulators.. because there is nothing else to promote.

Have you tried presenting this to a few of
the professionals?

It's very difficult to listen when someone is
yelling negativity at you.
Heaven knows the endless politics of medicine
is sickening..but it's the way of the world.

&lt;"();:::::::::::::::;~

Don

Can your device be used if a person has hardware, such as a pin in the femur? We were told that FES could not be used if one had hardware, but I learned on this site that is old information, that FES is safe to use on a person with hardware. I'm not sure if I understand quite clearly how this device works, and I'm sure that is my lack of understanding and knowledge of scientific things, not your explaination. But is my limited 'noggin power understanding that this is similar to FES, but more powerful? Which makes me think, if I'm correct, or close, that maybe the power of your device might heat the hardware and do tissue damage? if you've got time to answer, I appreciate it. Carol

One more thing please! In light of Scott's post stating you have an SCI yourself, I'd like to ask you if you use the device, I'm thinking that's probably a "yes", and what kind of improvements have you seen personally? And just so you know, I'm not asking you these questions to "challenge" you. I'm just interested. Thank you! Carol

[member412678]

[QUOTE]Originally posted by ScottS:
he mentioned Clayton Dixon. i did the majority of my rehab at VA PaloAlto along with Clay from July-December '02. as a fairly incomplete quad, Clay couldn't walk w/o a walker and a spotter, and could only manage 20-40 yards at a time.
i know this thread has a lot of readers upset w/ DQ, but there are a few things i can attest to that may or may not help. 1st, he does have a SCI that he sustained many years ago (i don't feel it is my place to specify more than that because i have not asked his permission to do so).
..............................................
Scotts,
Thanks for your post and the information.
So Clay Dixon was incomplete. That's what I expected. There are many people like that that get out of the wheelchair. It may take them 10 or 20 years, but eventually if they continue working hard, they get out of the chair because they have something to build on, even if it only begins with a toe or a muscle in the lower extremeties that they have voluntary control over no matter how weak. I don't believe it has to do with any machine. I think it has to do with continually trying, and using any means necessary to try to build on... sort of in a chain effect(FES or DQ's machine, forced-use therapy, pool therapy, etc). My opinion is it has to do with an individuals ability to heal and the nature of their spinal cord injury. We all know, no two are alike. I don't know how to build on something when you don't have anything to build on. My husband has a very thin sliver of spinal cord left between C7 and T1 as his neck was broken in half at that level... when a doctor views his MRI, the response is "Where is the Cord?"...it can only be seen with contrast. But I know better to say or think anything impossible. As for Don not saying anything about his spinal cord injury after so many of us have specifically asked...if you can't be straight with people, usually it's because you have something you want to hide...for whatever reason. Not attacking...just making a general statement.
Anyway, thanks for your post.

[Don Quixote]

Carol, yes, I use the device everyday, though it only needs to be used every other day to achieve the maximum amount of muscle recovery possible given the conditions for each individual. But there are many factors which act to slow this rate considerably. Keep in mind, first of all, that the muscle's condition must be the result of disuse atrophy, and not denervation. Denervation would result from peripheral nerve damage like the severing of a nerve to a muscle, leaving the muscle without any nerve supply at all, whereas with atrophy the nerve fibers are there but just aren't firing. The time from injury is very important. Ideally once the victim leaves intensive care his muscles will be maintained so that should the injury be incomplete, when the nervous system again comes on line, even if only weakly, it won't have muscles weakened from disuse to act upon. As it is now, this is always the case. Consequently there are many in wheelchairs with functioning nervous systems who remain paralyzed because the cross-sectional area of their type II fibers is so diminished that they cannot use the muscle. The intent of the therapy I am touting here is to restore that fiber. Keep in mind too that there are those whose spinal injuries are complete, yet who have large sections of the spinal cord below the injury that are not damaged. This means their muscles are atrophic, and, although these muscles may never be usable, they may still be restored to the point where they look fit and circulation to them and the bone and organ proximal to them will be facilitated. Furthermore, muscles that can be used will be strengthened.
From the time I was injured it took me 8 years to come up with this approach to treatment. It took another two decades to start seeing and experiencing the return of motor control and feeling below the level of injury. I have recovered a lot, including the ability to control urination, and to experience pleasurable genital stimulation. When I discovered this method of treatment I gave up exercising altogether, deeming it un-needed, and that was over two decades ago. I am told I look 'buff', my muscles are like rock and don't tire easily. I am convinced that if what I know now were known when I was hurt, I would never have been in a chair. I am outraged that the same people who put me there continue to disregard the role of severe atrophy in the perpetuation of paralysis following spinal cord injury, condemning yearly by their own insular obduracy thousands of people like yourself to possibly un-necessary enfeeblement. This is especially galling for the victims of stroke whose nervous systems tend to be intact and functioning but who are subjected to medieval therapies like 'induced restraint' by doctors who posture as informed and concerned yet who will do nothing to change their ways. to chance upon and develop this approach to spinal cord injuries. The story is on the web page. I was hurt at the T3-4 level by slight vertebral slippage as a result of a motorcycle accident. It took almost two decades to reach my present state of recovery. The sooner you start, the faster the results come. The healthier you become, the more accelerated is your recovery.
The device is nothing more than a pulsed DC power supply, examples of which are available off the shelves of many electronics manufacturing firms. Do a search on google for DC power supply, and you will see how common these devices are. The trouble is that for use in restoring muscle the voltage of commercially available power supplies is either too small [being either 12, 24, or 48 volts], or too great [being in the thousands of volts]. In addition the current strengths passed are always at leas one ampere, which is far, far too much. Consequently you will find few power supplies that lie in the range of 3 to 5 watts output power. They are usually hundreds of watts in power. The device I had designed and hope to have manufactured in the next month or two, has a maximum voltage of 90 volts, a maximum current flow of only 35 thousandths of an ampere, and a power output of 5 watts maximum.
This device is in no way like FES. FES devices, by FDA requirements, are not allowed to pass more than one half of one thousandth of an ampere. This is because of the disruptive affects of electrical charge on tissue. This limitation rules out electrochemistry, which is not possible without the passing of electrical charge. In the field of biology, even in the field of bio-electrochemistry, as you will see in the article by the Swedsh doctors on the web site, the article that deals with the destruction of benign and malignant tumors, bioelectrochemists understand how to destroy tissue with direct current, but, not having any grasp of physics and little of chemistry, they do not know that direct current also has the ability to build tissue also. Focussing only on its destructive aspects, they do not know how to limit these aspects, to reduce them, and to exploit the constructive aspects. One of the ways the destructive aspects are limited is by having a cathodic plate in contact with the skin that takes the destructive aspects before they are passed on to the body, and turns them into corrosion of the plate rather than destruction of the tissue. This is simple 'cathodic protection', a form of electrochemistry used by those concerned with reducing corrosion of metal parts on boats, for example, or on pipes placed underground. It's very simple physics, but, being physics, it is beyond the ken of biologists like Dr. Young who still measure electrical energy in joules. The device can be used on people with metal in them. Clayton Dixon has a metal rod in his neck. Amber, a quad currently doing this, has metal rods in her back for scoliosis, an orthopedic problem that can be amended by this manner of treatment merely by strengthening the muscles that attach to the spine. People who use FES, PEMS, and EMS are cautioned not to use this on muscles of the head and neck. This advice is the result of the ignorance of the promoters of those forms of electrotherapy who, if they knew what they were doing, would understand why these forms of electrical intervention are useless. Galvanic revivification or electrochemical therapy can and should be used on the muscles of the head and neck, on all muscles and organs of the body.

Lindox, the apparatus used was just discussed. When the equipment is available there will be a link on the site for its purchase, and complete instructions for its use. In addition there will be contact addresses and a bulletin board for all those who are using it so that questions, comments, and observations of all those using the device can share with others their own experiences. What I hope to start is a sort of grass roots movement of people who, being fed up with the same old ineffective nostrums from orthodoxy, are willing to throw off the yoke of neuroscience and engage in some self-experimentation. No apparatus of this type has ever been approved by the FDA for this use. After doing a patent search I found that no one has proposed the use of electrochemistry to build muscle ever in this country. You can read why on the web site in the essay "Biology, Electromagnetism, and the Nervous System." You will see that the theory, contrary to what you say, has not ever been considered, and this despite the idea that the nervous system is electrical, being around for over a century and a half. Whenever I sought to interest the neuroscience professionals in this I have been ignored usually, sometimes insulted. My approach now, a bit abrasive it might seem to people like yourself, is reserved mostly for these same people, and for the handicapped who are stupid enough to think that these same professionals care about them rather than the perpetuation of inconsequential researches and job security in the paralysis research industry. I once sought to get attention for these ideas from the Christopher Reeve people. I was thanked for my input, and then importuned for a donation. I laugh at Christopher Reeve now and his deterioration at the hands of the people who use him to garner more research funds so that their expense accounts and useless investigations can go on without having to examine fundamentals which, if corrected, would have gotten Christopher out of a wheelchair long ago. I am quite accepting of those who wish to pursue this line of investigation, and encourage you to look at the galvanism website again and again over the next two months to see when the machines are available. You will be able to see all the instructions and information before making a purchase and trying this yourself. Don't wait for permission from the medical community to heal yourself.

[Lindox]

DQ,
Thank you.
I will be watching the site for more news..
And reread it completely..I am a lay person..
and sometimes misunderstand some of the more technical jargon..so may need to reread it
more then once.

Anger is such an emotional energy depletor..I try to look forward and leave the failures in
the past to be learned from..but not to be
relived too often.

The world is so full of scams..empty promises..plain old cons..that we all have become wary. It seems sorting through too much poop causes you to become immune sometimes to the smell of poop.

Your innovation makes some sense to me.
I hope it can do as much as it is promoted to
be able to accomplish.



http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/tongue.gif

&lt;"();:::::::::::::::;~

Don, thank you very much for answering my questions so throughly and in a way my poor 'noggin could grasp. Much appreciated! Carol

[Don Quixote]

Lindox, the next, and I think one of the two most important additions to the site, will be coming up very shortyly, if I can keep the fire to the feet of the man I hired to do the work. The text is ready, captions, that is, for a series of images and eventually short flicks that will help to explain the two ways energy is captured by cells from the stream. Called photo-trophism and chemo-trophism, the tutorial will explain how digestion is the latter, and the targeted delivery of this energy by the nervous system to the cells of the body is then called nervous system trophism. To simulate nervous system trophism we have a cathode that corrodes or is 'digested,' in a manner of speaking, and with the anode we introduce a pulsed electrical field to the nerve endings transcutaneously, mimicking the way the nervous system delivers energy in waves of polarization and de-polarization. This analogy of direct current stimulation as a sort of pseudo-stomach, I hope, will justify for you the undertaking of learning where the nerve endings lie, as shown in the anatomy pictures already on the page. I will not put up instructions on the use of the machines until the machines themelves are available, and at that time too I will provide links for a bulletin board such as this one. Communication has always been very important for science, and I am just dying to know if galvanic revivification will do all the things the theory predicts besides restore muscle. Visits to the hospital and dentist for checkups reveals that my blood pressure is very low, all systems are working well after 31 years in a wheelchair, that I have the jawbone and the teeth of someone healthy less than half my age. My vision is the best it has ever been, and I don't need glasses to read. What I would like to investigate next is galvanic baths, and I understand they were done in England and Germany at the end of the 19th century, though, at that time, they had little in the way of diagnostic and laboratory tests. The Bakken Museum outside of Minneapolis is devoted to the history of the study of the role of electricity and electromagnetism in life. There are books there that have key information, I'm sure, about this 19th century work, even if it was done in relative ignorance. I think galvanic baths should be investigated for their affect on the skin, viruses, and retroviruses, and blood pressure relief. I'd much rather do this than get caught up in a pissing contest with people who want only to defend the beiefs, people, and methods that might be keeping them in wheelchairs.

[antiquity]

Don, your machine sounds interesting. I only hope that it is truly safe and that those using it will indeed benefit. Presenting it as an alternative to FES rather than attempting to promote its use by attacking the entire field of neuroscience may have circumvented some of the doubt and suspicion you've encountered. Can you tell us more about yourself, is your injury complete, how long did you use the machine before you started experiencing return?

...first of all, that the muscle's condition must be the result of disuse atrophy, and not denervation. Denervation would result from peripheral nerve damage like the severing of a nerve to a muscle, leaving the muscle without any nerve supply at all, whereas with atrophy the nerve fibers are there but just aren't firing. The time from injury is very important.

Are you saying that the best candidates are those with some remaining white matter, i.e., those who have spasms or experience spasticity? Could those who are unresponsive to traditional FES benefit from using your machine?

Thanks.

[Don Quixote]

Seneca, Dr. Young's colleague, Dr. Kern, who is said to have had, in the summary of the conversation between the two you sent to me, incredible visions of the effects of electrical stimulation on the recovery of muscle long paralyzed, works with direct current. In one of the research references that Dr. Young posted, one with Dr. Kern has team leader, it is reported that the current strength used was 250 milliamperes. Dr. Kern and Dr. Young both expressed concern about the destruction to muscle tissue at these tremendous current strengths. In the research report of Dr. Kern's the claim is made that a bi-symmetric or biphasic pulse was used. This is an attempt to limit the harsh effects of the direct current on tissue. What is involved here is a switching of polarity back and forth with each pulse. This effectively limits tissue damage, and removes electrochemistry as a consideration for the restoration of muscle through the triggering of protein synthesis, thereby rendering direct current stimulation as useless as FES or any electrotherapy that employs faradic current or AC, no matter how powerful muscle contractions are or how long they go on. It is extremely important, if one wants to restore a muscle, to use the same sort of electrical impulse that the body uses, applied at the same point, the neuromuscular junction. What the body uses is electrochemistry. It is a requirement of the FDA that all approved, powered, muscle stimulators pass no more than half a milliampere. This is to avoid excessive, or any, charge transmission, once again ruling out electrochemistry. The PEMS of Reeve and Young is said to achieve 'charge neutrality', and this renders their machine useless, for it too rules out electrochemistry. Simply put, FES, despite the anecdotal claims of those who use it, has no effect whatsoever in stopping deterioration from disuse, or in restoring muscle mass and strength, for it has no way of acting upon the type II muscle fiber. It is the type II fiber which makes up what we see grossly as muscle mass, and which is the structure behind strength of voluntary muscle use. It is the very thing, tissue damage, that makes direct current objectionable that also makes it effective. What is important then in using it is how it is used. Damage can easily be avoided if one is trained. The machine I propose, and use on myself, and which Clayton Dixon and others use, can still cause some damage if used without good technique. But the machine is so mild that the damage will be to skin only and the skin will recover just as it does from sunburn or chapping from exposure to the cold. As for telling you about myself, enough is said in the essay on the website dealing with the origins if the theory of galvanic revivification.

"Are you saying that the best candidates are those with some remaining white matter, i.e., those who have spasms or experience spasticity? Could those who are unresponsive to traditional FES benefit from using your machine?"

Please pay attention here. I have already said that spasticity is not the result of nervous activity. Instead it is the result of smooth muscle being acted upon by blood chemistry and local conditions. An example of the latter would be hot water on Andy's toe causing the leg to jump. There is no arcing in the spinal cord or reflex arc here. The striated, voluntary muscle is too far gone for nerve to make it contract. What is contracting is smooth muscle, the same sort of muscle that contracts when you shiver, or have cramps, or are tickled mercilessly. Both smooth and striated muscle are present on every muscle. The smooth muscle is associated mostly with blood and blood chemistry, and acts to constrict vessels, arteries and capillaries when it is cold out. All smooth muscle has electrical synapses, that is, fibers which grow from cells that are immediately post-synaptic, i.e., immediately downstream from the nerve ending. These fibers grow out to the smooth muscle cells. These fibers are protein wrapped up in a membrane that is the same or similar to myelin. But from the same cluster of synapses that can be found in the neuromuscular junction or ganglion, grows another set of electrical synapses, only this structure of synapses innervates the muscle cells of striated muscle, the muscle used in voluntary contraction. These fibers too are proteins wrapped in a myelin-like fiber. I think here we might see what muscle physiologists call fast and slow twitch fibers, but I'm not sure about this. It's the only thing that makes sense to me. The fast twitch fibers go to the striated muscle, the slow twitch to the smooth muscle.
Now we are presented with a spinal cord injured person. His muscles at first grow bigger and less dense with time, and then start to appear to wither and sag. If the nerve supply to the muscle is severed, both fast and slow twitch fibers are lost, and the muscle is flaccid. But if the nerve supply remains, with just the firing of the neurons that activate the fast twitch fibers being interrupted, then the fast twitch fibers lose cross-sectional area and the possibility of voluntary muscle contraction is soon lost as this atrophy advances. About the time that this happens spasticity appears. It is the reaction of the smooth muscle, not the striated muscle. What the spasticity announces is: the striated muscle type II fiber has lost its protein interior, but the blood supply is still there. Even spastic muscle will become flaccid over the years as the smooth muscle type II fiber slowly withers, but the neurons which activate cannot be traced to the spinal cord. They are in the brain and send axons down along the spine, traveling directly from the brain down the sympathetic chain on either side of the spine. As they travel down the spine they are joined at the dorsal ganglion by fibers coming from the cord to form the spinal nerve. These two types of nerve fibers form the clusters of synapses found in each neuromuscular junction and ganglion.
To answer your question then, if a person has spasticity, it is a good sign, for it means that the autonomic [not spinal] nerve supply and blood supply to the muscle is still intact. It tells us nothing about striated muscle condition except that it is too withered to use. What my machine does is trigger the growth not just of the striated muscle type II fiber proteins back through its empty sheath, but also triggers the growth of the smooth muscle type II fiber, and all things which grow from the synapse, whether muscle fibers or what becomes the contents of organs like the liver, the kidney, the lungs, the heart, the eye, the tongue, the genito-urinary organs, the stomach, the intestines, all arteries and capillaries, and the list goes on. A person who once had spasticity but lost it over the years, will see it return as he/she is restored, but this return will come long before the muscle becomes again usable.

[PN]

D.Q.:

If you go over to the Project Walk website, they have video clips which show what they do and the results of their P.T.methods. Project Walk was also interviewed by a news team from New Zealand and I find this type of media helpful. I am not endorsing Project Walk but I would like to see pictures along with some video clips (AVI,MPEG, etc) of your technology.

PN

[Don Quixote]

Paul, as far as video clips are concerned, I am working on that for the website now. But they are instructional videos aimed not at explaining what this all about, but how to do it. As for what this is all about, that comes in a more textual form in discussions of the history of science and evolution of thought regarding electricity and the nervous system. This is really boring material for the most part. I'm sure that people want to see things put in terms they are familiar with. In this regard the next thing to be hoisted to the web page will be the electrochemical tutorial. It will provide full justification for the use of direct current stimulation, and will eventually include MPEGs and video clips to replace the pictures. MPEGs will be used extensively in the explanation of the equipment, how to set it up and use it, and how to exercise each of the 1,152 motor endplate regions and ganglia in the body. From earlier postings you know that direct current can damage tissue if not used judiciously and with training. The page will provide the training and links to get the machines. I really don't care for media attention yet, and if it comes I have nothing to show except a small group of people who are dedicated to this and can show how it has helped them. I am not interested in amassing anecdotal evidence so that I can garner some sort of media attention and, with it, the attention of officialdom like that behind the Keck Center for Collaborative Neuroscience. I am interested instead in disseminating this information in such a way that it is taken up by both the handicapped and those just interested in fitness and health, and it is spread that way. You must understand that the equipment is not even approvable by the FDA, so I can get in trouble for making it available even at cost. Nevertheless, I will take that chance since I am driven by a deep-seated desire to topple the house of neuroscience rather than be assimilated by it, after what it has done for me and the harm it continues to inflict upon stroke victims and nervous system injured in its backwardness and insularity.

[AO]

Hi Don,

As embarrassing as this is to admit, I get a bit lost in the technical terminology of your posts and I have long since forgotten my highschool physics and chemistry classes.

Basically, I would like to know if the galvanic reverification is aimed purely at restoring atrophied muscle or as I think you have suggested, it might actually help with voluntary muscle control?

Also, you mentioned a 3:1 year ratio of galvanic therapy to time paralysed. Did I understand that correctly?

Regards,
AO.
ps I am not judging, just genuinely interested in your idea and wanting to know more.

[Don Quixote]

AO, galvanic revivification has a restorative affect on a lot of things in the body, or at least this is what is suggested by considerations of bioenergetcs and the role of electrochemistry in the process of metabolism. But what we are concerned with here is the reversal of atrophy, the loss of cross sectional area of the type II muscle fiber. That fiber makes up what we see grossly as muscle bulk; yet that fiber is the key to functional, voluntary, muscle strength. What muscles you can already use will be made stronger since galvanic revivification is merely a more efficient way of overloading the muscle the way a weight lifter would. Only you don't have to lift weights or even use the muscle. What the galvanic revivification provides is a simulation of the nerve impulse, a pulsed electrical field from the anode of the direct current, only far stronger than what your nervous system can put out. This makes overloading of the muscle really easy. But the electrical field must be delivered to the neuromuscular junction, just like the body does it. This means that you don't strap on or attach electrodes and leave them there but, instead, you move from one junction or motor endplate region to the next [there are 1,152 of them on the body], spending one or two seconds on each. The device will make the muscle twitch from 800 to 1000 times per second depending upon the frequency you chose. Because of the affects of direct current on the skin you never spend more than a few seconds on each point. The cathode, on the other hand, you move every couple of minutes. The anode will feel hot and cause a stronger contraction than the cathode which triggers weak contraction on smooth muscle and feels very cold and numbing.
You understand the time ratio of exercise to prolonged bed rest well. This figure comes from the Veterans Administration and is, I think, a standard estimate gained by experimentation by muscle physiologists on those who have to submit to enforced and prolonged bed rest.
When a muscle that is severely atrophic is made to contract using galvanic revivification, the contraction triggered is very weak. Over time that contraction grows stronger at the same current strength, its strength of contraction being an indication of the restoration of the type II fiber. The time it takes for the muscle to be restored can be quite long, depending upon, once again, how long it has been paralyzed. This can take decades in fact if you are doing leg muscles on a quad who has been paralyzed over ten years, for example. Since the body evolved to function as a unit, it would be better to treat all the muscles of the body rather than just a few. By restoring the muscles and organs of the pelvis, for example, you will increase the rate at which muscles of the lower leg recover.
What is being recovered, the cross sectional area of the type II fiber, will allow for muscle use if the neuronal inputs from the cord and the brain are still able to reach the now healthier muscle. If they cannot, for example if a bullet has passed through the spinal cord or vertebral slippage indicated on an x-ray indicate the cord could not have survived intact, then the muscle can still be made healthy even if it is not usable. But a large fraction of the paralysis from spinal injury, especially at the cevical level, and almost if not all paralysis from stroke, is the result of severe atrophy that prevents the muscle from being used even by a healthy nervous system. The suggestion is then that the return of controlled motor functioning merely awaits restoration of the muscle in many cases of enduring paralysis following non-destructive spinal cord trauma. In other words the fact that one is paralyzed cannot be taken as evidence that damage to the cord is complete. This information must come from other diagnostic methods, like x-rays or surgical examination. In those cases where the muscle is the problem, return of voluntary muscle control is achieved with the restoration of the muscle. Nothing has to be done to the cord or the brain. It is important to remember that contraction alone will not restore a muscle; the contraction must be triggered in a true simulation of how the nervous system does it. That means electrochemistry. When the muscle is weak, the contraction triggered by electrochemistry will be weak, but grow strongeer over time. Beware of any type of electrotherapy that does not use direct current, that might use direct current but switches the polarity back and forth with each pulse, that does not have a corroding cathode, that causes strong contractions on weak muscle. The corroding, oxidizing cathode is one way the damage to the body is limited. Otherwise the corrosion takes place in the body itself. At the anode what is triggered is reduction, that is, the creation of chemical bonds between carbon and hydrogen needed for the building of biological molecules.

[AO]

Thank you for your explanation Don.

I understand now what you are trying to get accross. Very interesting to me as I spent 6 months in ICU not being able to move at all. I was/am diagnosed complete ... but then again it took a few months for me to regain enough strength in my arms to use them, after all that time of being immobile.

I'll keep a watch on the galvanism site and here for further news.
Regards
AO.

[member412678]

I'm no scientist...but about the type II muscle fibers...I don't believe they are the only ones that respond to exercise, or the only ones that matter. My husband has gone from 0 resistance to .1 and is able to do a session on the bike for 1 1/2 hours now. His endurance,strength and cardio vascular ability have all increased. His leg muscles are stronger, though he doesn't have "voluntary control". The bike's stim percentage doesn't go above 40, and the bike won't quit until it reachs 99 percent as I understand. He began using the FES bike in December.

[Don Quixote]

I agree with hope2findacure that more than the type II fiber respons to exercise. I disagree that FES is exercise or anything more than passive movement triggered by an external power source that causes the muscle to contract in a way not at all similar to how the body does it, relying upon voltage transmission rather than a simulation of the nerve impulse. Larwatson, on another thread, suggest that this is a matter to be settled by lawyers and insurance companies, that the research of the Brazilian scientists is phony. He is a lawyer, and he concludes that scientific evidence is not a rational basis to make a claim that FES doesn't work, and shifts requirement of proof from the people who make money from these devices to those who claim they don't work. In the court of science the burden of proof is on those who make the claims. Those who claim FES works have never proven their case, and the scientific evidence so far is that it has no effect on type II muscle fiber. Period.

[Curt Leatherbee]

Good news, I just off the phone with Electrologic and FES bikes are now being covered by the VA for Disabled Vets who qualify. The VA is also Covering the cost of the Neuropulse units for Disabled Vets who qualify.

If FES is such an unproven technology, I most certainly dont think the US goverment would be covering the cost of such technology for disabled vets.

[chasb]

Well Curt,

It appears that DonQ has explained that FES does not truely increase the muscle mass that matters, (type II, I believe). I never did believe the assertions made on the Electrologic site. Why, because they don't have the proper studies to back it up. You once told me "All you are doing with your passive bike is heating the motor up and jacking up your electric bill".
Looks like thats all your doing also. Why doesn't Electologic sue DonQ, he can't be that hard to find. I guess truth is a complete defense.

[Don Quixote]

Well, Curt, Chasb smelled a rat on the electrologic site in that there was no supporting evidence, just claims made. The FDA, in its approval process for powered muscle stimulators, admits it has no expertise in the area and is not equipped to judge on the effectiveness of any product approved, merely to certify it as safe. Petrofsky, an engineer, did not have to come up with any biopsies to show that FES affected the cross-sectional area of the type II fiber even though it had been known since at least 1976 with the transmission electron microscopic work of Dr. Sudhansu Chokroverty, who published his findings in the Archives of Neurology that year. Petrosfsky found a safe way to make the muscle contract in response to the computer-controlled voltage transmission to certain muscle groups on the legs. He got the machine approved because he did not have to show results in restoration of muscle, merely that his novel combination of engineering and archaic neurological doctrine about the thermodynamic nature of the nerve impulse was safe to be used by the credulous. The contraction triggered was nothing like how the body does it. That is why the type II fiber is unaffected, and why FES has no affect on muscle atrophy. The idea that the approval and widespread use of FES, even its being paid for by the VA, has no bearing on its undemonstrated effectiveness. The question to ask is how can we tell if FES works without doing the biopsies? Well, the biopsies have been done. How then can we tell if FES doesn't work without doing the biopsies? If FES didn't work, what would we look for? And herein is the problem. There is no test for the success or failure of FES to reverse atrophy, no test even proposed by its author, Petrofsky. It is always assumed that it is working because it is making weak muscles contract strongly, which is rather un-natural. And this doesn't cut it in the world of science, only in the world of commerce where the electrologic FES seems to be making inroads to the VA. Being a disabled veteran myself for almost 32 years I can say this is almost for sure an indication that it doesn't work.

[larwatson]

Originally posted by Don Quixote:

I agree with hope2findacure that more than the type II fiber respons to exercise. I disagree that FES is exercise or anything more than passive movement triggered by an external power source that causes the muscle to contract in a way not at all similar to how the body does it, relying upon voltage transmission rather than a simulation of the nerve impulse. Larwatson, on another thread, suggest that this is a matter to be settled by lawyers and insurance companies, that the research of the Brazilian scientists is phony. He is a lawyer, and he concludes that scientific evidence is not a rational basis to make a claim that FES doesn't work, and shifts requirement of proof from the people who make money from these devices to those who claim they don't work. In the court of science the burden of proof is on those who make the claims. Those who claim FES works have never proven their case, and the scientific evidence so far is that it has no effect on type II muscle fiber. Period.

See, now all you've done is gone and irritated me. Either you are mis-stating my assertion or you just don't get it. So let me lead you through this once again.

There are volumes of research that have shown the benefits of FES for folks with SCI. This research has been performed by various independent resources and is now an accepted therapy for a vast number of rehabilitative uses well beyond SCI. Petrofsky and others have proven their point in the "court of science."

The science is available to any that want to look at it with an objective and discerning eye. Insurance companies, Medicare and now the veterans administration have each reviewed the science, and have been convinced that FES is an effective therapy for SCI. These are folks who have every incentive to disprove the science so that they don't have to pay for the equipment. They would fire their review boards if they had cleared therapies that don't pass stringent scientific review.

So here I sit with the FDA, the Veterans Administration, Medicare, and numerous insurance companies (including Blue Cross Blue Shield) who all have nothing to gain, but a great deal to lose . . . acknowleging the scientific support. And then of course there is Dr. Young who once again has no financial interest to support FES, and considered one of the leading neuro scientists in the area of SCI also acknowledging the value of FES.

The scientific evidence is beyond substantial . . . and conspiracy theories including stakeholders with contrary interests just don't fly here.

But no . . . I'm supposed to throw all of the scientific evidence out out and look at one study performed by a group out of Brazil, and proffered by someone who admits to be conflicted.

And mind you proffered by someone who doesn't have enough nad to identify him/herself.

This isn't a legal issue . . . this is a commonsense issue. And no reasonable person looking at the totality of the scientific evidence, and additional facts proffered above regarding the FDA, Veterans Administration, Medicare, and insurance industry . . . would ever come to the conclusion that the Donster has a legitimate basis for his assertions.

Finally . . .

Chasb . . . if Don is so certain of his legal basis for not having commited slander/professional libel . . . than he should have enough intestinal fortitude to identify himself. What does he hve to be afraid of?

Petrofsky couldn't sue even if he wanted to because this coward won't show his face.

As I said on the other thread. Don stop talking. Go prove your therapy works. And then put Petrofsky out of business.

Until that time comes . . . goodbye.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

[Don Quixote]

Larwatson,until you can cite a study which finds by biopsy of type II muscle fiber that FES affects atrophy, until you can come up one of the multitude of researches you say are out there, one, just one, only one that uses biopsies and electron transmission microscopy to verify the fantasies of Petrofsky, please stop crowing about how FES has survived scrutiny in the court of science. Not even Wise Young could do this. You say the scientific evidence is 'beyond substantial'. You know so much, okay, where is it?
With regard to providing evidence that electrochemistry has the affects it does on the triggering of protein synthesis such that the type II fiber's cross sectional area increases, I am in the process of disseminating the equipment and information so that individuals can check it out themselves. I cannot afford the electron microscopic biopsies that Petrofsky should have done, but didn't since he is an engineer and knew nothing about muscle structure, only how to make a muscle contract using voltage transmission.

[Scott Pruett]

blah, blah, blah.

[Steven Edwards]

Originally posted by Don Quixote:

And herein is the problem. There is no test for the success or failure of FES to reverse atrophy, no test even proposed by its author, Petrofsky. Then how can you reliably claim that FES doesn't work?

-Steven
"Sometimes, its enough to plant the seed, walk away, and let the flower grow on its own."

[Scott Pruett]

This you, Don? WHOIS data is public information, by the way. If so, what kind of research does your lab do? Just curious.

from register.com:
Gregory O'Kelly
San Luis Laboratories, CA

[.]

scott just so you know, Don had already stated in a post to me earlier in the thread, when I questioned who he was, as to where to find his name on the website, so you didn't have to go to all that trouble. But, I'm glad to find out about this WHOIS thing. pretty neat. going to have to check it out. no harm to any party meant here, just pointing something out.

[Steven Edwards]

Google Results (http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&q=san-luis-laboratories)... guy has a 20 page PDF available on Electrochemistry and Neuroscience.

-Steven
"Sometimes, its enough to plant the seed, walk away, and let the flower grow on its own."

[larwatson]

Originally posted by Don Quixote:

Larwatson,until you can cite a study which finds by biopsy of type II muscle fiber that FES affects atrophy, until you can come up one of the multitude of researches you say are out there, one, just one, only one that uses biopsies and electron transmission microscopy to verify the fantasies of Petrofsky, please stop crowing about how FES has survived scrutiny in the court of science. Not even Wise Young could do this. You say the scientific evidence is 'beyond substantial'. You know so much, okay, where is it?
With regard to providing evidence that electrochemistry has the affects it does on the triggering of protein synthesis such that the type II fiber's cross sectional area increases, I am in the process of disseminating the equipment and information so that individuals can check it out themselves. I cannot afford the electron microscopic biopsies that Petrofsky should have done, but didn't since he is an engineer and knew nothing about muscle structure, only how to make a muscle contract using voltage transmission.

You still don't get it do you? The burden's on you stud.

Let me lake this real easy for you if you want anuybody to take anything you say seriously. Three simple steps.

1. Identify yourself and your credentials. You've yet to prove up on even this very simple point. Until you do so you have no credibility.

2. Provide documented proof of the effectiveness of your therapy that has been subjected to peer review.

3. Provide a published work by a respected professional journal indicating the validity of your documentation.

4. As a throw in - get nominated by a group of your peers for a Nobel Prize. Jerrold did.

The burden's not on me Don, or Dr. Young, or the Petrofsky's. The FDA, the VA, Medicare and the insurance companies are all potential expert witnesses that have publicly testified in support of FES by approving these therapies as being effective. These are independent sources with far greater scientific knowledge than I have . . . or you have shown. With the VA, Medicare and the insurance industries being the equivalent of hostile witnesses.

The burden's on you big stick. Now stop the whining and the circular arguments and get to work.

The burden is on you.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

[Don Quixote]

Member posted 03-17-04 04
This you, Don? WHOIS data is public information, by the way. If so, what kind of research does your lab do? Just curious.from register.com:Gregory O'KellySan Luis Laboratories, CA
Posts: 1019 | From: Virginia | Registered: 11-21-01



Steven Edwards Moderator posted 03-17-04 04:20 PM 03-17-04 04:20 PM
quote: Originally posted by Don Quixote:
And herein is the problem. There is no test for the success or failure of FES to reverse atrophy, no test even proposed by its author, Petrofsky. Then how can you reliably claim that FES doesn't work?-Steven"Sometimes, its enough to plant the seed, walk away, and let the flower grow on its own."


Steven, whenever anyone makes claims about any scientific hypothesis, they are required by scientific method and others in that scientific community, to specify a test by which the truth of their hypothesis may be tested. This test occurs in the form of hypothetico-deduction, that is, given a premise A, we examine the connection between A and the consequent, B. This occurs in the form of "If A, then B," where B is to be connected to or related to A in some way. B is usually in the form of a prediction. For example, we are faced with the premise A, FES reverses atrophy. In order to test this premise, we connect it to a consequent, B, where, in this case B would be "cross sectional area of the type II muscle fiber increases." Dr. Petrofsky has an A, a premise, but he never sought to test it, relying instead on the refusal of the FDA to bother investigating the veracity of claims about powered muscle stimulators as long as they were safe. Instead of saying "If FES reverses atrophy, then we should see..." Petrofsky said right off, A is true, it doesn't need to be tested, proof of its truth is in the approval by the FDA for powered stimulators. Larwatson and Curt now would have us believe that the widespread acceptance of FES, even by the VA, is indication of its effectiveness, and they cannot cite evidence anywhere that relates cross-sectional area of the type II fiber to FES. It turns out that the only such evidence, the results of research discussed earlier in this thread that was done by Brazilian scientists, shows that FES has no affect on type II fiber. We are left then with the following bit of deduction for those who push FES as working: If FES reverses atrophy, then it will be accepted by the FDA and used widely by people who know nothing about muscle structure. This certainly isn't science, though it satisfies the gullible and the desperate, and it plays into the hands of Dr. Petrofsky who never supported his claim with the biopsies. Consider then that if FES reverses atrophy, and if there are those who might be paralyzed because of advanced myopathy or disuse atrophy, then, so far, FES has not done a thing to restore anyone's muscles to usability even though some persist in using it for as long as 20 years. Petrofsky never said what to look for if his device doesn't work. The possibility of its not working has never been tested or even considered. He assumed from the start the device would work, and did nothing to verify this assumption.
Scott, San Luis Laboratories is a small organization dedicated to testing Petrofsky's assumption, and to finding what does actually affect the diameter of the type II fiber. A key bit of the analysis is updated understanding of the nature of electricity and of the electrical functioning of the nervous system as seen in nervous system trophsim. It is the premise of this lab that the only way to trigger the protein synthesis necessary for the increased diameter of the type II fiber is to simulate nervous system trophsim delivered to the neuromuscular junction. Nervous system trophism cannot be simulated using AC or biphasic current since electrochemistry is not possible, and, using direct current, it is not possible unless the charge from the anode is delivered to the neuromuscular junction. Dr. Petrofsky's claims are contradicted by the available research done not by this lab, but by the Brazilians. What this lab has done is research the way that cross-sectional area can be affected. Although this lab has not done the biopsies to confirm that electrochemistry has this affect (they are so expensive that only people like Petrofsky or Rutgers University could do them), the people who work here know that FES has not been shown to have this affect. Here's a little bit of empirical evidence, something that Petrofsky lacks, to support the idea that electrochemistry has this affect. When a severely atrophic muscle is made to contract with electrochemistry, the contraction is weak, but grows stronger over time as the muscle is exercised regularly, and motor control of a once unusable muscle returns gradually. With FES the contraction is strong enough to move the leg from the very start, yet even after years the muscle remains as unusable as it was at the start.
Rather than taking time sniping at me, why don't some of you approach Dr. Young and ask him about this? Ask him where the biopsies are that contradict what the Brazilians found? Here I am suggesting that maybe there have been mistakes made that act to keep people in wheelchairs un-necessarily, and what am I faced with? A bunch of people who want to endorse a product that has been around for twenty years yet has never gotten anyone out of a wheelchair or ever restored motor functioning. Absolutely amazing! Thank you all for being so patient with me. Your future is in your hands. I'm out of here. I found something. It works. It is helping me and others. Goodbye.

[larwatson]

Don/Greg whatever.

First. Pal anybody that knows me knows my cynical nature. Desperate isn't something I've ever been accused of. Quite to the contrary actually. I have no stake in this fight that you've picked other than I'll be damned if I sit by and let people like you come around and push a therapy that has no supportive base. And more importantly detract from one of the few therapies that I have actually seen developed that works.

If you know anything than you know that the Petrofsky's faced vast skepticism and were decried up into the early 90's as selling false hope. I myself waited until the mid 90's to try it. They and others like them had to prove up their case for over two decades before FES has been tepidly accepted by the insurance industry.

It works. I've seen it work. It has worked on me. I've been in achair for over 20 years. By using FES on my forearms this past year for about one month I began to get back movement in my hands that I nver had before. The same with my legs, which took almost 6 months of intense FES work. When i stopped the FEs the movement in my legs has subsided, but not the movement in my hands, though I'm not getting more back right now.

So little pup I've been there. I had to battle my insurance company to approve the therapy. And I want to make sure that others have access to it.

Now if you want to come around and decry a therapy I know works and possibly jeopardize others opportunities to have access to it . . . .

The you sure as hell better be ready to put up or shut up.

If you've got something better than great let's see it. I'll even help you promote it. But you better come to the table with something better than vacant, unsupported statements.

You've been at this for a while. Amazing that no one has bit. Surprisingly you've been promising the same thing since 1999 it seems.

Here's a blast fom your past. It should sound familiar. The reference thread from google is as follows: Reference (http://neuro-www.mgh.harvard.edu/forum/SpinalCordInjuryF/2.18.991.41PMMuscleWeakne.html)

Muscle Weakness, Atrophy, Paralysis
This article submitted by Gregory C. O'Kelly on 2/18/99.
Email Address: kweir@slonet.org

I have conducted almost two decades of research on the problem of chronic paralysis following concussive, non-destructive spinal injury, and I have arrived at the conclusion that much of this paralysis is due not to irreversible nerve damage, but to atrophy of muscle tissue during the acute phase of injury. I have a four page paper available by e-mail which discusses this issue in highly technical detail, but it is still understandable by the layman. The point I wish to make here is that this sort of chronic paralysis is reversible even years after injury, all that is required is restoration of the muscle. The longer after injury one waits to do this sort of treatment, involving direct current electrotherapy, the longer is takes to recover. If the body is maintained during the acute phase then the person may never be paralyzed once the neck injury or spinal bruising clears up. I am looking for people, patients or physicians, who would like to read this paper and discuss its implications for the treatment of chronic paralysis. The treatment has been perfected, and waits only to be disseminated. The paper will be sent to anyone requesting it. It can be supplemented by a second paper of greater length which discusses the role of electromagnetism in the treatment of chronic paralysis and the degenerative diseases of aging. All are welcome! Feedback is invited.
Gregory C. O'Kelly

Next Article
Previous Article
Return to Neurological Disorder Topic Menu
Here is a list of responses that have been posted regarding this article...

* Very Interested (5/4/99) 1:50 PM
* Paralysis Paper (3/18/99) 4:20 PM
* Please send this to me (3/4/99) 5:22 PM
* Gregory (2/22/99) 1:37 PM

Goodbye Greg/Don/ whatever. Come back when you have something tangible.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

[This message was edited by larwatson on 03-17-04 at 06:26 PM.]

[This message was edited by seneca on 03-18-04 at 09:04 PM.]

[Snowman]

Nice detective work guys...

Once his cover was blown he bailed out, interesting...

http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/cool.gif http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

Eric Harness,CSCS
Project Walkâ„¢ (http://www.projectwalk.org)

[Curt Leatherbee]

Thanks guys, this thread has been really bothering me. A lot of people have put a lot of work into FES and it is a shame to discredit them as being unethical and what not when the person doing the discrediting has no real understanding that FES is a valid therapy.

One thing that really proves Don/Greg does not know what he is talking about is him saying that FES works the same as when it is first started as it does six months later, that the muscle contraction starts out strong and stays that way and does not gain in strength. I disagree very much with this statement from personal experience.

When I first started using my FES bike after being Paralyzed for 20 years, I would ride about 5 to 10 minutes before going into shutdown, my legs were just too weak to push any longer. Now after three years of hard work and using the bike for the most part every other day for one hour rides, if I regularly use the bike I can push on level 4/8 (pushing 25 watts in resistance) for up to an hour. I know this is pushing quite a bit of torque as I have tried helping out with my arms just to see the resistance I am pushing and I have to really flex my triceps to turn the leg crank using my arms at these levels.

I know also when I work out regularly, my legs look and feel very muscular including my gluts, my legs are even more heavy due to the increased muscle bulk and it is harder pulling them into my vehicle after transfering in, I some times worry about stressing out my shoulders more as lifting my legs is a lot harder when I am using the bike regularly. There is no doubt in my mind that I am building up muscle bulk in using the bike regularly. Another benefit I get from regular use is decreased leg spasms.

If I take time away from the FES Bike, such as when I am on vacation, I notice my legs get lighter and less muscular and far more spastic. When I start using the FES bike again, it takes a lot of time to build back up to the level I was at before I stopped using the bike. I took the month of January off from riding as I was in Florida and it took me a full 5 weeks of riding for an hour every other day until I was back up to riding level 4/8 for the full hour.

The only way to build muscle bulk is through hard work, this includes staying on a regular schedule of using the FES bike. Same thing with lifting weights as any weight lifter will tell you. You cant just sit on your fanny and duct tape some Anode or whatever to your forehead and expect it to happen by itself, building muscle bulk requires exercise, as much as some people dont want to hear this.

And Chasb let me ask you something, if I where to put an electric motor on my handcycle and duct tape my hands to the pedals and just sit there for one of my thirty mile rides and watch my arms rotate around by the power of the electric motor, do you really think I would stand a chance of getting any useful exercise this way and building up any of my muscles? Working out with an electric motor powered erogometer is only good for range of motion and perhaps circulation (dont get me wrong it is better than doing nothing) but the only way you are going to get real exercise is to allow your muscles to do the work. I remember we got into an arguement a couple years back about this in the chat room. Sorry you still do not believe the claims of FES as it has infact helped so many people including myself. A few years back, even I was wary of the claims made by the FES Manufactures, I am now completely sold on the idea now that I have a lot of experience with FES bikes. I have hoped it would gain even more widespread acceptance than it has, I have nothing to gain by saying this as I no longer work for the company, it is just something I want other people who are SCI to experience for themselves.

[This message was edited by Curt Leatherbee on 03-17-04 at 08:17 PM.]

[chasb]

Curt,
the "bulking up" of the muscle (you speak of) is from water being added to the muscle from the session stimulation. Thats why there is such as fast decrease in size (of the so called muscle) when you stop using the e stim bike. One other thing; From my knowledge it takes a minimum of 140ma to cause enough of a current to cause contractions in the quads, hams & glutes. It is my opinion that this amount of current is not good for the muscle tissue or cartilige long term. Just my opinion, not trying to get anyones panties in a twist.

[Jeff]

I haven't participated in this topic thus far. As an avid FES biker I had to come here to even believe it. And I certainly can't read the entire history of this topic. Sorry. So I'll just add a few thoughts.

FES causes deep muscle contractions. By stimulating muscle contractions in a pattern they become functional, you can pedal a bike. Electrodes embedded in the muscle might produce stronger contractions, but surface electrodes are sufficient.

The increase of strength and endurance in my legs as I pedal regularly is being questioned? The centimeters added to the girth of my thighs are what? Isn't it just common sense that as you exercise you build strength? Is anyone contending that our own muscles are not responsible for pushing the pedals against resistance? So we go from zero activity to every other day pedaling. This is supposed to have no effect?

Obviously the use of FES in SCI cannot be the issue here. Increased muscle bulk and strength. Cardio-vascular training. Certainly no one is questioning the value of FES for SCI in this regard. I don't know what the "joke of electrical stimulation" is but it has nothing to do with paralyzed persons making themselves healthy with FES. Because that's no joke at all.

I had a four week vacation from FES back in December/January. I started a topic about it in this forum. It took almost three weeks for any significant changes in my legs to be apparent.

Anyone who's tried FES doesn't question it. At least not any paralyzed person. Nope. For us it's our first shot at real exercise for our paralyzed muscles. Exercise that uses our own muscles and nothing else. Exercise that increases our heart rate and cardio-vascular conditioning.

I'm shocked there has been four pages of discussion regarding this. For me there's little left to talk about. Only educating the not yet informed as to the great benefits of FES should generate this many messages.

~See you at the SCIWire-used-to-be-paralyzed Reunion http://www.stopstart.fsnet.co.uk/smilie/wavey.gif ~

[duramater]

Jeff..the history is:

A cartoon character came in and bashed Dr. Young, the Keck Center, S.Petrofsky, FES and all of traditional neuroscience.

He thought he was bright. He sarcastically asked if I was also a schoolteacher...LOL how funny because...I AM!!!
(this is not fair, he actually may be bright, but he sounds very bitter)

So, Scott put a name to him further proving that no one is anonymous on the internet. LarWatson is brilliant in my opinion deserves whatever legal fees he charges anyone...( that is generous coming from me seeing as I think I sent my divorce lawyers second child through college).

Curt is a good defender, and a few like ChasB offered good counterarguments which are always welcome when they are done with some taste and manners..(miss you chasb)

Meanwhile, after one post, I sat back and watched.

Mr. Don Quixote, did you go bye byes? Sorry, but I am a mother too...

Well I think that's about all of it. Now I have to go to therapy for E-stim because I thoroughly enjoy my reduction of pain that does not work according to mr..greg whatever...

Mary

If I can see it, then I can do it. If I believe it, there's nothing to it.

[member412678]

Jeff,
I've already mentioned everything you did. There is no point arguing with this guy. You can't make someone see what they don't want to see. He seems to base his entire opinion on FES not affecting Type II muscle fibers...which I don't care what type of muscle fibers FES affects...it's definately affecting some type of muscle in my husband's legs and gluts(which will help prevent pressure sores)also as yours. I've made reference to how power lifters that lift extreme weights are not bulked up (type II muscle fibers are genetic and vary from individual to individual, some people have more some less)like Arnold Swartezzenager wouldn't dream of lifting what that Russian guy was lifting over his head who just looked like he drank too many beers and ate too much pizza! And there is no way you can doubt the cardio benefit of pedaling a bike at 47 to 50 rpm for an hour 3 times a week.
I appreciate you posting http://sci.rutgers.edu/forum/images/smilies/smile.gif

[ScottS]

a different way to look at it...

instead of focusing on his shots at fes, why not actually thinking that his proposed therapy might work? basically, b/c he came out shooting at Dr Young, fes, Petrofsky, etc, everyone doesn't like DQ so they focus on shooting him down. while his manner of promoting his therapy is controversial, the therapy may be right on. why not try it? if fes therapy had been promoted in the same manner, where would all you die-hard fes users be today?

this electrochemistry theory/therapy could possibly be the "next big thing." maybe it will get better results than fes...maybe it won't. how will you know w/o trying it? i know the guy he wrote about, Clayton Dixon, he was a bit overweight and out of shape when we were in rehab. now he's fit b/c of DQ's device. he is an incomplete injury and that may be why he's out of the chair now, but i guarantee the therapy helped a lot, if not the reason he's out now. he only used the device a few months and in those months he had huge results!

the problem here isn't electrochemistry vs fes. the problem is that nobody is reasonable b/c they are mad about the posts. i'm sure fes had humble beginnings, but people tried it & liked it, and those people support it now. don't confuse backing up a therapy you like w/ contempt for an alternative therapy. when electrochemistry has been tried by enough people it will build the necessary foundation and hopefully take off like fes. i know i'll be trying it as soon as i can get ahold of a machine. i'll have to take caution not to damage my skin, but fes, tens, & estim have the same precautions.

SEE THROUGH THE CONTEMPT!!! this post went as far as tracking the guy down, and also threatened a lawsuit...geez! that was all just as unnecessary as the attacks on Dr Young. gimme a break, just consider the therapy...

[Steven H. Petrofsky]

HI to everyone,

I thought I would write and set a few things straight. I do not know where this member obtained his information. The basic research began in the 1970's and has been ongoing around the world. This technology is used by Therapeutic Alliances and Electrologic of America in the commercial FES bikes. The FDA only allows seven claims to be made by manufactures of electrical stimulators because these claims have been proven. One of the claims is reversal of muscle disuse atrophy. If you search Medline, the primary search engine for medical papers, you will see 42 papers published on reversal of muscle atrophy with electrical stimulation using needle biopsies as proof. A like number of papers have been written using cat scans showing the cross sectional muscle area increase with the use of FES.

With the early research on the FES bike development, Dr. Barth Green, a top neurologist who started the Miami Project and its cure program, studied with us the effects of FES on muscles and proved its benefits using biopsies and cat scans in 1983. He worked in conjunction with my brother Jerrold at Wright State University and Dr. Ragnarsson at NYU. Dr. Green, Jerrold and I were part of the startup team of Therapeutic Technologies. The early basic research was the foundation for the develop of the REGYS and the ERGYS bikes at TTI. I was VP of Engineering and R&D at Therapeutic Technologies, before stating my current company Electrologic. Over the years, these technologies were greatly improved in the StimMaster's three generations of development.

To help with the information on muscle fibers, in layman's terms, there are two types of muscle fibers. One type is used for quick response and heavy muscle force. The other type is used for long periods of continuous work. FES does train and increase both types. The FES bike, trains the endurance fibers most of all. Let us not forget, disuse atrophy is not the most important consideration for the use of the FES bike. Its best advantage is cardiovascular conditioning which is only obtained by using your own muscles for peddling the bike through the use of FES. This action increases circulation, decreases skin breakdown, and decreases spasms.


Steven H. Petrofsky

[larwatson]

Originally posted by ScottS:

a different way to look at it...

instead of focusing on his shots at fes, why not actually thinking that his proposed therapy might work? basically, b/c he came out shooting at Dr Young, fes, Petrofsky, etc, everyone doesn't like DQ so they focus on shooting him down. while his manner of promoting his therapy is controversial, the therapy may be right on. why not try it? if fes therapy had been promoted in the same manner, where would all you die-hard fes users be today?

this electrochemistry theory/therapy could possibly be the "next big thing." maybe it will get better results than fes...maybe it won't. how will you know w/o trying it? i know the guy he wrote about, Clayton Dixon, he was a bit overweight and out of shape when we were in rehab. now he's fit b/c of DQ's device. he is an incomplete injury and that may be why he's out of the chair now, but i guarantee the therapy helped a lot, if not the reason he's out now. he only used the device a few months and in those months he had huge results!

the problem here isn't electrochemistry vs fes. the problem is that nobody is reasonable b/c they are mad about the posts. i'm sure fes had humble beginnings, but people tried it & liked it, and those people support it now. don't confuse backing up a therapy you like w/ contempt for an alternative therapy. when electrochemistry has been tried by enough people it will build the necessary foundation and hopefully take off like fes. i know i'll be trying it as soon as i can get ahold of a machine. i'll have to take caution not to damage my skin, but fes, tens, & estim have the same precautions.

SEE THROUGH THE CONTEMPT!!! this post went as far as tracking the guy down, and also threatened a lawsuit...geez! that was all just as unnecessary as the attacks on Dr Young. gimme a break, just consider the therapy...

1. When you want to promote a therapy it is unnecessary to attack others.

2. You certainly don't attack the Dr.'s who are recommending the therapy out of goodfaith as being "fraudulent."

3. Nobody here threatened a lawsuit. They warned him of the legal grounds upon those he was charging with fraud had a basis for a complaint. Myself, Curtis, et al. have no standing to bring a claim.

4. See my posts below. I told him several times to stop the negative campaigning against FES and just prove up his theory. One incomplete injury with success does not a therapy make. I gave him 3 specific steps to do this. 1. State his name and his credentials. 2. Provide peer reviewed documentation of the therapies effectiveness. 3. Provide a published article in a respected journal outlining his research.

He stated in 1999 that this therapy was about to be distributed. He states the same thing five years later. He has actively sought patients to try his therapy. WITH NO FDA approval. In his own words the FDA is a baseline for safety.

In short, I have no problem with new and better therapies. The more the merrier. But not at the expense of our safety or the safety of others.

Prove up the product. Get it on the market. And compete with Petrofsky. If he's right he will be able to attract plenty of investors in his technology and Petrofsky will be out of business in no time.

Heck, I've got people who would talk with him. But he needs to come to the table with a lot more than what he's shown before I would even consider making those introductions. And any potential serious investor certainly would not want him posturing himself like this on a public forum.

In short, he needs to stop the squawking and go to work.

Enough said.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

[duramater]

One more point:

Note that in serious discussions of cure and therapies, the frontrunners have posted under their own names. If there is a screen name, the most credible to me do not hide out in the bushes. When asked who he was, DQ said..it did not matter. I say it does. He is marketing something...it most certainly does matter. If you want to try the machine, try it..maybe that is wise for you to do. I would hope the operation manual is complete and in print before you turn on the switch. It was not wrong for the members to search for his identity, it was responsible. They care, and it mattered to them. Like Lar said, market the thing...properly and compete. I was never angry...I questioned but was not angry. DQ had no problem giving it out...when one does that, he or she must be ready to get it back in equal measure.

Mary

If I can see it, then I can do it. If I believe it, there's nothing to it.

[Don Quixote]

Thank you , Steve Petrofsky, for finally speaking up. The chorus of true believers in FES was getting deafening, which in itself is not bad, but the incoherence was a little off-putting. Thank you for telling me that there are 42 papers out there that conflict with the research done by Greve JM, Muszkat R, Schmidt B, Chiovatto J, Barros Filho TE and Batisttella LR (1993). Functional electrical stimulation (FES): muscle histochemical analysis. Paraplegia. 31: 764-70. Department of Rehabilitation, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Could you please cite me to them. I have searched PubMed for 'functional electrical stimulation' and 'muscle atrophy,' and gone 20 pages deep in each case, as I have regularly over the years. I found nothing that conflicts with the findings of the Brazilians, and would greatly appreciate some guidance here. I did find two thing which were curious, one of them by a relative of yours perhaps:

1: J Spinal Cord Med. 2003 Winter;26(4):384-9. Links

Physiologic responses to electrically assisted and frame-supported standing in persons with paraplegia.

Jacobs PL, Johnson B, Mahoney ET.

Department of Neurologic Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33136, USA. pjacobs@miamiproject.med.miami.edu

BACKGROUND: Systems of functional electrical stimulation (FES) have been demonstrated to enable some persons with paraplegia to stand and ambulate limited distances. However, the energy costs and acute physiologic responses associated with FES standing activities have not been well investigated

This study, as you see, was done in 2003, and published in the winter of that year. Not so long ago. 'Not well investigated'...curious. I was lead to believe the work was done. I know that your and your machine are more soundly based in science. Just FDA approval and adoption by the VA assure this, or so the chorus chanted. But let's consider another study:


Neuromuscular Rehabilitation by Treadmill Running or Electrical Stimulation after Peripheral Nerve Injury and Repair.

Marqueste T, Alliez JR, Alluin O, Jammes Y, Decherchi P.

UPRES EA 3285, Faculty of Sciences and Sport, Marseille, Bouches-du-Rhone, France; UPRES EA 2201, Faculty of Medicine Nord, Marseille, Bouches-du-Rhone, France.

Numerous studies were devoted to the regeneration of the motor pathway toward a denervated muscle after nerve injury. However, the regeneration of sensory muscle endings after repair by self-anastomosis was few studied. In previous electrophysiological studies, we showed that the functional characteristics of tibialis anterior muscle afferents are differentially affected after injury and repair of the peroneal nerve with and without chronically electrostimulation. The present study focuses on the axonal regeneration of mechano- (fibers I and II) and metabosensitive (fibers III and IV) muscle afferents by evaluating the recovery of their response to different test agents after nerve injury, repair by self-anastomosis, during 10 weeks of treadmill running (LSR group). Data were compared to control animals (C), animals with nerve lesion and suture (LS), and animals with lesion, suture and chronic muscle rehabilitation by electrostimulation (LSE) with a biphasic current modulated in pulse duration and frequency, eliciting a pattern mimicking the activity delivered by the nerve to the muscle. Compared to the C group, results indicated that, 1) muscle weight was smaller in LS and LSR groups, 2) the fatigue index was greater in LS group and smaller in LSE group, 3) metabosensibility remained altered in the LS and LSE groups, and 4) mechanosensitivity presented a large increase of the activation pattern in the LS and LSE groups. Our data indicated that chronic muscle electrostimulation partially favors the recovery of muscle properties (i.e. muscle weight and twitch response were close to the controls) and that rehabilitation by treadmill running also efficiently induced a better functional muscle afferent recovery (i.e. the discharge pattern was similar to the controls).

Afferent, as you know, does not mean efferent, that is, functional motor skill, but feeling. Nothing here to support the motor functioning thing. It's curious though. Here the authors claim that a BIPHASIC current mimics THE ACTIVITY DEVLIVERED BY THE NERVE TO THE MUSCLE. I'll talk about physics shortly. But in the meantime here it is:

The effect of previous weight training and concurrent weight training on endurance for functional electrical stimulation cycle ergometry.

Petrofsky JS, Laymon M.

Department of Physical Therapy, Loma Linda University, CA 92350, Loma Linda, USA, jerry-petrofsky@sahp.llu.edu

Forty-five paraplegic subjects participated in three series of experiments to examine the interrelationships between previous weight training, concurrent weight training and muscle strength and endurance during cycle ergometry elicited by functional electrical stimulation (FES). When subjects only underwent isokinetic weight training (series 1) three times per week on the quadriceps, hamstring and gluteus maximus groups for 12 weeks, strength increased linearly with time for all three muscle groups from an initial average of 17 N to 269 N at the end of training, a 15-fold increase. In the second series of experiments, different groups of subjects either underwent no strength training prior to cycle ergometry or underwent strength training of these same three muscle groups for 2 weeks, four weeks, or 6 weeks prior to cycle ergometry. Any strength training was effective in increasing endurance for cycle ergometry. However, the rate of increase in endurance during cycle ergometry with no prior strength training was only 5 min per week, whereas the rate of increase in cycle endurance during ergometry was 14.6, 25.0, and 33.3 min per week increase in endurance after strength training for 2.4 and 6 weeks, respectively. When weight training was accomplished during FES cycle ergometry (concurrently) in a third series of experiments, there was an additional increase in endurance during cycling if strength training was concurrently accomplished. With no weight training, endurance increased 23 min per week, whereas with concurrent weight training at three times per week, endurance increased during cycling by 41.6 min per week. The results of these experiments seem to
I don't know if this the Jerold Petrofsky who originally pioneered the FES thing, or what relation he is to you, but look at that conclusion: "The results of these experiments seem to show a clear advantage of weight training concurrently and before FES cycle ergometry. Results are given as mean (SD)." This seems to support the idea that more is gained from weight training effort than from FES. Am I wrong here? Did I read this properly, did your namesake find that FES is superfluous? Please help me here. Direct me to one, just one, of the 42 papers that are out there that say that biopsies show that FES increases the cross-sectional area of the type II fiber. I have been looking for it for years.
Now let's get to physics. As an engineer you will understand this, I'm sure, though the transition to physiology might be challenging. You know, of course, that in the graph of a sinusoidal wave showing the voltage change over time of an alternating current, the area between the curve and the x axis is the measure of electrical charge passed. This means that for a biphasic current, like that cited above in the work done by Marqueste et al. which, it is claimed, simulates nervous functioning, the amount of electrical charge passed is zero, unless that biphasic wave is asymmetrical. But nothing was said about this in the article, so I will assume it is symmetrically biphasic. Again, that means no current or charge was passed. This rules out electrochemistry. How, then does a biphasic current simulate nervous functioning, which is not known to work by AC? More particularly, how does FES work? What does your wonderful machine do? In causing contractions without passing electrical charge (indeed, this is outlawed by the FDA no less, and your machine has FDA approval), how does the electrical current act upon muscle, and is this an adequate simulation of the way the nerve does it? We both know that voltage transmission alone can't cause biochemical changes like those necessary for the synthesis of proteins. So how does voltage transmission strengthen muscle, that is, increase cross-sectional area of the type II fiber, without using chemistry, which is possible only with mon-ophasic current? I'm just dying to know. Please, please, let me in on the secret. You see, because, in principle, before even seeing the Greve research which says FES has no affect on the type II fiber, physics and chemistry alone suggest that this is what should be found - that FES does not have any influence on muscle atrophy. Please, let me in on the secret. I won't tell anyone. Or else cite me to the research that says it does. Oh please!!

[antiquity]

Dr. Petrofsky, welcome, again, to CC and thank you for participating.

Larwatson, good suggestions.

ScottS, I mentioned in another post that perhaps a better way to market this product would have been as an alternative to FES but to attempt to promote a product by discrediting the validity of the science behind another is certain to raise anyones ire, especialy those who have achieved success with it, but I suspect this was DQ's intention. How better to bring attention to yourself. Make your product available, allow users to decide which is preferable based on the results it produces, and if it works as suggested, it will stand on its own merits. Rehab specialists will flock to it in no time and FES based technology will become obsolete. Lars is right, no investor worth his salt would back a product that's promoted in this manner. DQ stated that FES proponents have claimed that its use alone could return motor control to the paralytic and get people out of their chairs when the fact is that those claims were never made. He's failed to understand exactly what FES has been shown to do. I hope his machine does work as he suggests, perhaps finalizing the technology will take less time than his previous attempts seem to indicate. The quicker he subjects his machine to the same stringent criteria FES has been subjected to, completes the necessary trials and receives FDA approval, the better.

[This message was edited by seneca on 03-18-04 at 10:20 PM.]

[chasb]

"Its best advantage is cardiovascular conditioning which is only obtained by using your own muscles for peddling the bike through the use of FES. This action increases circulation, decreases skin breakdown, and decreases spasms".I agree with this 100%, and nicely put. Mr. Petrofsky, I have been following you and your brothers achievements over the years and would like to thank you for your efforts. As I believe every journey begins with a single step.

[Don Quixote]

Seneca, I am in the very process of introducing this approach to muscle and organ restoration. It is costing me easily tens of thousands of dollors to come up with the equipment so that those interested can try it. I am not introducing this as an alternative to FES, but a replacement of it. Despite what you and Steve Petrofsky say about the science behind FES and how it is so throughly researched, I cannot find any of it on PubMed, and even that done by J. Petrofsky, Steve's brother, apparently, and which I included in my last post, says that FES is largely ineffectual. So far Steve hasn't come up with any science that says FES does anything to reverse atrophy, that contradicts what the Brazilians say. In addition we have this quote from Chasb, and it explains why I say that FES does not do what is claimed: "using your own muscles for peddling the bike through the use of FES." You are not powering your own muscles, the power source is external - let's look again at the quote from Chasb, more closely: "...using your own muscles....through the use of FES". The power source is external, not your own body; the power source is a biphasic current (AC) which is not how the body works; you are not then using your own muscles except to hold on to the machine; all muscle contraction is caused by an external power source, one that cannot trigger growth of the type II fiber; you are not 'using' your muscles, instead you are causing them to contract by voltage transmission delivered to the muscle surface, not electrical charge to the neuromuscular junction the way the body does it. My statement still stands, and neither Steve Petrofsky nor Wise Young has offered any science which contradicts the conclusion of the Brazilians, that FES has no effect on type II fiber cross-sectional area. I'm waiting for that science. I have searched the journals for it for years, and never found a thing.

[Lindox]

DQ,
Is there anyway FES and your theory can be integrated?

Perhaps an upgraded FES?
It seems with the innovative minds of you
and Mr. Petrofsky..the skies the limit.

&lt;"();:::::::::::::::;~

[Don Quixote]

DQ,Is there anyway FES and your theory can be integrated?Perhaps an upgraded FES?It seems with the innovative minds of youand Mr. Petrofsky..the skies the limit.

Lindox, I would like nothing more than to tap into the resources and concerns of the Petrofskys with regard to the restoration of muscle and great amelioration of the condition of the handicapped. They have the money for the clinical tests. I could not interest NASA in a submitted research proposal. They rejected all forms of electrical stimulation to build muscle as tried and unproven, and in a letter to me I was told that NASA would stay with the traditional resistance exercises. Testing the hypothesis of the electrochemical nature of nervous system trophism and the application of this account to the building of muscle, in particular, the type II muscle fiber, could be quickly tested by NASA. All that would have to be done is have someone go into space for one month doing whatever, but not exercising except with electrochemistry. Upon return to earth if this person could stand up and walk from the shuttle, my point would be proven. Another way this could be tested is have a number of people spend two months in bed, with some exercising with electrochemistry, some not, some doing isometrics, and some just exercising one half of their bodies with electrochemistry. Biopsies of the muscle would measure the diameter of the type II fiber both before and after the two months. A third way would be to routinely treat all new spinal and cerebral injuries and stroke victims while they were hospitalized, and, upon release, compare the percentage that walked out with those that walked out in previous years. This latter study would be very time consuming and expensive. The first one is unlikely because NASA is so bureaucratic that even though debilitation of flight crews from disuse is, as NASA admits, the biggest obstacle to manned exploration in the solar system. The second way of testing it is the way to go.
A key problem with getting the Petrofskys to cooperate is that the implications of seeing nervous system trophism as electrochemical involve the immediate undermining of the claims to efficacy of FES. What is involved here is the full disclosure of the electrical signal used by FES to achieve muscle contraction, and an examination as to whether this comes close at all to how the body does it. In an earlier post on this string to Steven Petrofsky I discussed the area between the curve of a biphasic current plotted with X as time and Y as voltage. This area is current flow, that is, amperes. With a biphasic current, like that used for FES and virtually all electrical stimulation approved by the FDA, that area averages out to zero, with the area above the X axis cancelled out by the area beneath the X axis. This is the charge neutrality that FES seeks to achieve, and it rules out electrochemistry. Another problem is that to use electrochemistry like the body does, one must go to each of over 1000 neuromuscular junctions and ganglia on the body. This is not then something that a person straps into and turns on. To exercise this way one has to be very active and knowledgeable of one's own anatomy, moving the anode every two seconds and the cathode every 5 minutes to avoid blistering and pitting respectively, or at least the deep redness that can be found at either pole when the current is allowed to run too long in one spot. This takes training and dedication to learn. I will have all the training videos on the web page when the machines and anodes are manufactured, and this will take perhaps two more months. What I need is people who are willing to try this, handicapped or not. The non-handicapped will show results far more quickly since their muscles are still usable; similarly with the recently injured. But there will be no biopsies involved with this grass roots approach to the investigation, so, just as with FES, all endorsements will be based upon anecdote. In the court of science anecdote carries no weight even though it may result in increased sales of equipment. What the biopsies would do is provide the scientific evidence for justification for the use of electrochemistry in the treatment of disuse atrophy, but in so doing they would also provide refutation of the claims of FES to affect muscle atrophy, and this is something the Petrofsky's could not get behind. They have a financial stake and reputation, the preservation of which would be threatened by this very investigation.
In any case, this evening, I am told by the man I hired to work with me on this, the initial electrochemical tutorial will be hoisted to the web page at www.galvanism.org (http://www.galvanism.org) This tutorial will present the role of electrochemistry in the origins of life, and in the extremely important cellular capture of energy through what is called 'chemotrophism'. I hope it will serve as justification to you and others, even if not the Petrofskys or any paralysis researchers, for trying this approach to the restoration of muscle mass and the return of motor functioning amongst those with incomplete injuries [a considerable fraction of all spinal injured and those paralyzed from stroke]. I am hoping that those interested in physical fitness, even if not themselves disabled, also pick up on this. Some people who have posted to this thread have claimed to use FES for twenty years. Because the longer from the day of injury the longer it will take to restore muscle, there are many chronic paralytics who will have to spend that amount of time, and longer even, before the muscles are usable. But the point is that the muscles will become usable if the problem is merely disuse atrophy from years of paralysis after an incomplete injury. In my case, I have been paralyzed going on 32 years from the T-3,4 level, after twenty-four years of researching, studying, and developing this approach, I have recovered control of urination and use of muscles to the waist, pleasurable feedback from genital stimulation, interoception that allows me to feel when I need to defecate and to expel feces without having to use digital stimulation, and the beginnings of movement of the femurs of both legs. And it doesn't stop here. I have feeling in my feet now, and expect motor control to return far more over the next four years.

[ScottS]

wow, was my post even read, or what? in no way did i support DQ's attacks on anything or anyone. i did not support the fact that he withheld his identity, nor did i support his marketing strategy.

this was posted under the unwitting charlatanry topic:
"Anyhow Don, I am going to notify Mr. Steve Petrofsky of Electrologic of your posts here and if there is anyway to track you down you sure as heck better hope that you dont end up having a lawsuit filed against you."

and this, in response to my last post:
"3. Nobody here threatened a lawsuit. They warned him of the legal grounds upon those he was charging with fraud had a basis for a complaint..."

it may not technically be a threat, but it's close enough. let me try again to make my point. it may not apply to everyone who took part in this forum, but many were upset by his attacks and therefore unwilling to consider that the therapy may work. electrochemistry may very well be the next big thing but it was torn apart b/c of how it was marketed. i didn't like the way it was marketed either and don't think it will successfully take off this way, but i'm interested in seeing how well it works. i am supporting the theory only. i hope to see it do well and ultimately help a lot of people. if you read the last essay in the Academic's Corner of his website, titled "Biological Cellular Energy Capture," you'll see that it makes a lot of sense. i know someone who uses it safely everyday, so safety is not a concern of mine, as long as i use it as it's intended.

it won't hurt me, it'll probably help me, so i'm going to try it. i'm just suggesting people consider the same thing. it's the same logic i used in order to decide to try fes.



"Today I will do what others won't, so that tomorrow I can do what others can't."

[Don Quixote]

The electrochemical tutorial on the web page at www.galvanism.org (http://www.galvanism.org) is now up. It explains in detail the role of electrochemistry in the origin and evolution of life, and provides the justification for the use of electrochemistry to build muscle and restore organ functioning. It should be noted that any form of electrical stimulation that does not use electrochemistry, that is, that relys upon what is called a biphasic current, does not come close to simulating the working of the nervous system, and cannot trigger any constructive changes in the body because it is not capable of affecting biochemistry. The immediate implication is that all forms of electrotherapy currently on the market, whether FES, EMS, PEMS, E-Stim, or whatever, has no affect on the body's chemistry and, having no affect, is incapable of building or rebuilding any part of the body. All forms of electrotherapy using biphasic current, whether AC or DC, are based on pseudo-science and wishful thinking as old as the 'animal electricity' of Luigi Galvani which dates to the late 18th century. If your equipment has been approved by the FDA, it doesn't work. FDA regulations for powered stimulators prohibit the passing of electrical charge,and this makes electochemistry impossible.

[larwatson]

Good writing. Addresses absolutely none of the 3 requirements I asked for, but must have taken awhile to put together.

Lets see if I can make this easier for you.

1. Personal credentials (a resume would be suffice)
2. Data (from your own trial and the trials of otherswhom this theory has presumably been tested on)
3. Peer review of data (an objective third party looksee)

I'll even settle for just the first two for starters.

Scott you've stated that you know of one person who this therapy helped. Where's the clinical data for that person? Where's any data at all?

This guy has been stating since 1999 that he's ready to get stated with distribution. Yet, no FDA approval?

From his own words he's stated that if FES is FDA approved that all it means is that its safe. In fact if its FDA approved he states clearly that it won't work.

I'm not stating his therapy is out and out bunk, but if he's not willing to fulfill the above criteria and an assurance of safety from the FDA (hmmmm a resume and some data) then your following statement:

"it won't hurt me, it'll probably help me, so i'm going to try it. i'm just suggesting people consider the same thing. it's the same logic i used in order to decide to try fes."

is complete BS. You're asking people to consider something that has absolutely no basis for weighing the benefits and risks. No FDA approval? Why, because in order for it to work it won't pass FDA safety standards?

I'll believe it when I see it. I wish you luck.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

[ScottS]

larwatso, you just don't get it, & at this point i'm sure you're not going to. thoroughly reading the previous posts will answer your questions/concerns, and keep you from putting words in my mouth that are based on your assumptions, and misleading others as to what my intentions are (my intentions are only for people to give the therapy an unbiased consideration...nothing more). i'm through trying to explain & re-explain myself.

by the way, please don't wish me luck after saying my statement is complete BS. i'd rather not be patronized w/ insincerity.



"Today I will do what others won't, so that tomorrow I can do what others can't."

[larwatson]

i'm through trying to explain & re-explain myself.

by the way, please don't wish me luck after saying my statement is complete BS. i'd rather not be patronized w/ insincerity.
[/QUOTE]

Scott. The first part of my post was directed at Greg. He's yet to address the three criteria I or anyone considering investing their money (or bodies) into should require.

And I fully get your intentions. You think folks should give the therapy a shot. I'm telling them not to based upon the lack of information. In my mind they would be unnecessarily putting their health at risk.

We can agree to disagree. If you can help Greg prove up his theory than I sincerely wish you good luck.

Until he proves up his theory I will remain skeptical.

Points to ponder if you are considering Greg's therapy and assuming that there is no FDA approval:

1. Interview as many folks as possible who have tried the therapy.

2. Ask to see before and after results. The more data the better.

3. Agree to buy nothing without a warranty, and see if there is a money back guarantee.

4. Ask if he has product liability insurance and at what amount is it capped?

5. Of the people interviewed who have tried the therapy, how many are your type of injury (ie quad, para, incomplete, complete, etc.)?

These are just for starters.

What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator

[dr bob]

Donkey Hotee,
Forgive my spelling. My text prediction software sometimes puts the wrong words for names. I have used FES for years and it has help me tree men does lee. I hope to use your biochemistry treatment one day. Thank you.

[3E3]

I have been paralyzed going on 32 years from the T-3,4 level, after twenty-four years of researching, studying, and developing this approach, I have recovered control of urination and use of muscles to the waist, pleasurable feedback from genital stimulation, interoception that allows me to feel when I need to defecate and to expel feces without having to use digital stimulation, and the beginnings of movement of the femurs of both legs. And it doesn't stop here. I have feeling in my feet now, and expect motor control to return far more over the next four years.

I found this in an earlier post of yours. I am not trying to be offensive with this post, it is just some questions that I have about your product. How long have you been using your product? You have been researching this for 24 years, but when did you come up with a working unit? I may be slightly confused or more than slightly but is your machine any different than galvanic stim units that are on the market already? Correct me if I am wrong but this hasn't helped you regain control of all of your muscles yet, and in those muscle that you cant control yet you must have occurred some atrophy after 32 years, have you regained any bulk or size in these muscle from the use of your product and do you have any pictures that will be posted on your web site of these muscles. If you have results that we could see from your experience with this I think you could get some die hard FES users to think about trying your product.

[j c]

what is the latest with don's galvanic stim machine?

[NewWalk]

Don:

I will begin FES Bicycling in 2-3 months for a 3 month tenure, 3 days a week. I will let you know personally if I benefit from it. Have you tried it ?????

Regards,

New Walk

[mr_coffee]

Don Q, I am sorry but I disagree with these authors. I have personally seen the increase of muscle bulk that comes with surface stimulation of muscles.


I agree, take a look at my legs:
http://suprfile.com/src/1/1p13yn/cc1.jpg

They seem to both be the same size in muscle bullk and yet the one with my brace, is the one that I can't move on my own unless i move it on a spasim. Meaning, in 1 year 5 months it hasn't touched a weight. THe one that i can do leg curels with is actually smaller in msucle bulk then the one that isn't working. So yes, stimming does mean muscle growth in some cases. If you would have seen my legs before, they looked like bone and skin.

[3E3]

Its been nearly 2 years since he last posted on his product. I highly doubt that we will hear from him.

[mr_coffee]

lol WHOOPS, f it. Look at my hairy legs.

[mom01]

Every one is obviously entitled to their own opinion. My daughter has benefited from e-stim, and I am very grateful that it was available to her at Kennedy Krieger.

[stickelt]

A certain amount of debate and skepticism is fine, but Don is blinded completely. I think he serves no purpose for this site and should be kicked off. Don apparently has never heard of Charlie Francis ( trainer of Ben Johnson) and has never really owned or used EMS. It would be like debating with someone about Paris, when they NEVER been to Paris. Its crazy to reply to someone that wants to through all the negativity around. The FDA is funded by pharmaceutical companies, to use them as a reference is a joke.
Don is a lonely, bitter, pessimissic person. He brings nothing to the community except aggrevation. Misery loves company , right Don, your in the WRONG forum. Find a forum of miserable human beings to join.
This is an optimistic, science and anecdotal forum. I use EMS and it works, I use it on my son with Cerebral Palsy and it works, you need to get a life and stop using google for searches like "EMS does not work" and "EMS is a joke" and "EMS and ab belts" You are a disgrace. Reminds me of a lifelong college student. "Those that can't do, teach"

Enjoy your wonderful life,
Sincerely
EMS enjoyer.

[stickelt]

Your website looks like a 10 year old make it. haha. You disgust me.