Page 6 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 51 to 60 of 99

Thread: The joke of electrotherapy

  1. #51
    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.

  2. #52
    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.

  3. #53
    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.

  4. #54
    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.

  5. #55
    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.

  6. #56
    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.

  7. #57
    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.

  8. #58
    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.

  9. #59
    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

  10. #60
    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.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •