Page 7 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 70 of 99

Thread: The joke of electrotherapy

  1. #61
    blah, blah, blah.

  2. #62
    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?

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

  3. #63
    This you, Don? WHOIS data is public information, by the way. If so, what kind of research does your lab do? Just curious.

    Gregory O'Kelly
    San Luis Laboratories, CA

  4. #64
    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.

  5. #65
    Google Results... guy has a 20 page PDF available on Electrochemistry and Neuroscience.

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

  6. #66
    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

  7. #67
    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 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.

  8. #68
    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

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

    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.]

  9. #69
    Nice detective work guys...

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

    Eric Harness,CSCS
    Project Walkâ„¢

  10. #70
    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.]

Posting Permissions

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