This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Nikola Tesla ( 1856- 1943), a contemporary and associate of Lakhovsky, had conducted an array of experiments on high-powered, pulsed DC electricity to investigate the causes of death of several staff of Thomas Edison's regional high-voltage DC power electric generation stations in the late 1800s. [1] Experimental accounts from Dr, Joseph Henery 1842, and Elihu Thomson, a physics instructor, 1872, had outlined various unexplored phenomenon involving sudden discharges of high-voltage capacitors into various inductive / coil circuits. Tesla himself noted a variety of effects with such experiments that included an explanation as to the causes of death of the generating station workmen. Tesla noted a continuum of effects with this momentary pulsed DC phenomenon that he termed radiant energy where certain parameters (time, force, and resistance) caused either injurious effects (including acute pain or death), or luminescence (light) effects of various colors, or euphoric, pleasant mental state biological effects (on himself, Tesla). [2]
John Kenneth Hutchison, an independent Canadian physics researcher-experimenter / inventor uses several Tesla coils and a Van de Graaff generator to elicit what is known as the " Hutchison-effect." The effects match descriptions of the Philadelphia experiment, and results in levitation (anti-gravity), spontaneous formations of unipolar magnetic fields, theoretical FTL particles (tacyons), and other effects that Hutchison characterizes as inter-dimensional. In the 1980s, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney personally ordered the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) to seize all of Hutchison's lab equipment, and notes in the name of national security.
Even today,
Tesla
electromagnetic properties and principles are not fully understood or documented except by those sequestering the technology for exclusive
military use. }}
Brown, Thomas J.
"picture cover of MWO Handbook". amazon.com books. Retrieved 2007-09-08. {{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
References
IBID, 2000 - Gerry Vasslatos, page 30, 39, 42, 43.</ref>
This page appears biased in favor of the subject and his work (e.g. calling it a "bold idea"), and should be modified as per Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
Wannabecoder 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a large number of pharmaceutical products whose exact mechanism of working are not even known by the pharmacological companies themselves. For example a certain chemical compound that acts upon the liver to lower serum lipids / LDL cholesterol concentrations--its exact actions upon the liver are not known--just that it can in some cases have a damaging affect on the liver for which periodic blood testing must monitor. The pharmacological laboratory development of this drug must have involved some science, yet a complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play are deemed unnecessary to accept the drug into widespread prescriptions by medical doctors, AMA, FTC, and FDA.
Science is postulation of reasoned theories followed by testing the theories via conducting of experiments, making observations, performing analysis on the observations, and making reasonable conclusions based on the analysis results. The experiments and results must be published and scrutinized by reasoned peer review.
If this Georges Lakhovsky person conducted his therapies for various diseases successfully over a decade without large complaints being raised by families of unsuccessfully treated patients, this speaks favorably that there is some substantiation of his concepts. Oldspammer 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Clinical studies can be constructed purposefully by entities who have opposing viewpoints to discredit the work and results of those who present competing ideas or ideologies or products or services. Such is the political nature of the world in which we live. It should be clear from this that any studies should be open to scrutiny by being published to the web somewhere and that verifiable testimonies and evidence be independently provided or available.
In the case of this and similar devices government / military science labs world-wide could conduct experiments and publish the results to prove or disprove the theories and claims of such individuals and their devices in a reasoned, unbiased way regardless of the impact on pharmacological corporate profits. Oldspammer 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that this article should be deleted, then don't bandy about reverting my edits--just say that because the subject person of the article lived so long ago, there are too few reliable sources to provide citations for the facts that can be given.
On the other hand, if you are one of the people who think that this guy was a painter, then start an article about the painter. The web references that I provided all refer to this person as an engineer, regardless. If this guy got his education prior to the Communist revolution in Russia, then it is likely that there is not going to be a recording that he was educated at engineering school XYZ in Russia. I placed a fact template on the Minsk claim because I found nowhere where this claim could be found via Google researching. Now that you have reverted my edits, that template is now gone.
What are you doing?
What do you intend to do next? Oldspammer 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Using Google I could not find the birth date for this guy as accurately as was inserted into the article, so I put a fact template on the birth place and the exact month / day given. I can only find that he was from Russia, and that the year of his birth was as given in the current article.
The above IP user / someone at some point inserted the exact date, and that George L was a painter leads me to think that the painter might have been born in Minsk on that exact day / month, but possibly not that year?
If the IP user would have taken the time, he / she would have seen that the entire article was about an electronics scientist / inventor of a medical treatment device, and not 'a painter.' Any such fact templates regarding his being an engineering or scientist should be questioned in regard to G.L.'s being the painter of completely dissimilar first and middle names. Oldspammer 11:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this fellow actually notable? All the sources used are rather far off from WP:RS Adam Cuerden talk 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:RS:
An entire page that ignores WP:RS in every source is not really in line with that. Also, your comments are pure POV, and not really relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article in accordance with WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. I am not sure whether it is notable enough to be retained at all. LeContexte ( talk) 12:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
References
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). and "The Waves That Heal" by Mark Clement.
References
It is quite obvious this article was wrote or edited by someone with resentment to non-traditional medicinal methods. I must remember: an encyclopedia do not serve the purpose of insulting, an encyclopedia serve the purpose of showing information. Was not the case of serving to this purpose (insulting) for criminal figures like Hitler (a known genocide), and it is obvious it will not be the case for people with different methods to approach the treatment of illnesses. I am just comparing a criminal (not insulted in an encyclopedia) with a researcher (insulted in this article). The entry: "considered quackery by mainstream medicine" Is clearly and directly defamatory. There are doctors that do not think in this way, and that term is falsely assertive (it is, by its very nature, asserting that all people think in this way, which IS NOT TRUE). The article hide vital facts about George Lakhovsky, for example, that his studies were accomplished in the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in France, a very reputable place (known internationally) with people so emminent Jean Martin Charcot (father of the modern neurology)... hence again we have an assertive phrase to tend to ridicule Mr. Lakhovsky. No recent peer-reviewed, funded scientific studies have investigated these claims so they are not accepted by mainstream science. (See below mention of American Cancer Society information.) Perhaps the American Cancer Society could refresh their historical sources, to gather up this information, which is hidden in this article (I do not know why). The article continue insulting, now with the word quackery: There is no support in peer-reviewed medical literature for the efficacy of the devices propounded by Lakhovsky. The American Cancer Society (ACS) treats all electromedical treatments as quackery.
I do not have to remember, that Einstein oppossed to Newton with his theory or relativity (and also suffered attacks), like in this article. Newton was the equivalent to the equivalent of "mainstream medicine" (in physics) by those times. With this, I am showing to you, healthy information do not attack or show personal oppinions, just inform, being impartial. I'm not very skilled in the use of Wikipedia, but I will upload public domain pictures, in which Dr. Lakhovsky, treated, and CURED different kind of cancers, in plants (Geraniums) and Humans. And yes, I mean, HUMANS. (You understood it well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.123.211 ( talk) 12:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally unsourced stub, how does this pass notabilty? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article was nominated for deletion on 18 December 2007. The result of the discussion was no consensus. |
Nikola Tesla ( 1856- 1943), a contemporary and associate of Lakhovsky, had conducted an array of experiments on high-powered, pulsed DC electricity to investigate the causes of death of several staff of Thomas Edison's regional high-voltage DC power electric generation stations in the late 1800s. [1] Experimental accounts from Dr, Joseph Henery 1842, and Elihu Thomson, a physics instructor, 1872, had outlined various unexplored phenomenon involving sudden discharges of high-voltage capacitors into various inductive / coil circuits. Tesla himself noted a variety of effects with such experiments that included an explanation as to the causes of death of the generating station workmen. Tesla noted a continuum of effects with this momentary pulsed DC phenomenon that he termed radiant energy where certain parameters (time, force, and resistance) caused either injurious effects (including acute pain or death), or luminescence (light) effects of various colors, or euphoric, pleasant mental state biological effects (on himself, Tesla). [2]
John Kenneth Hutchison, an independent Canadian physics researcher-experimenter / inventor uses several Tesla coils and a Van de Graaff generator to elicit what is known as the " Hutchison-effect." The effects match descriptions of the Philadelphia experiment, and results in levitation (anti-gravity), spontaneous formations of unipolar magnetic fields, theoretical FTL particles (tacyons), and other effects that Hutchison characterizes as inter-dimensional. In the 1980s, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney personally ordered the Canadian Security and Intelligence Service (CSIS) to seize all of Hutchison's lab equipment, and notes in the name of national security.
Even today,
Tesla
electromagnetic properties and principles are not fully understood or documented except by those sequestering the technology for exclusive
military use. }}
Brown, Thomas J.
"picture cover of MWO Handbook". amazon.com books. Retrieved 2007-09-08. {{
cite web}}
: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors=
(
help)
References
IBID, 2000 - Gerry Vasslatos, page 30, 39, 42, 43.</ref>
This page appears biased in favor of the subject and his work (e.g. calling it a "bold idea"), and should be modified as per Wikipedia's NPOV guidelines.
Wannabecoder 21:39, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
There are a large number of pharmaceutical products whose exact mechanism of working are not even known by the pharmacological companies themselves. For example a certain chemical compound that acts upon the liver to lower serum lipids / LDL cholesterol concentrations--its exact actions upon the liver are not known--just that it can in some cases have a damaging affect on the liver for which periodic blood testing must monitor. The pharmacological laboratory development of this drug must have involved some science, yet a complete understanding of the underlying mechanisms at play are deemed unnecessary to accept the drug into widespread prescriptions by medical doctors, AMA, FTC, and FDA.
Science is postulation of reasoned theories followed by testing the theories via conducting of experiments, making observations, performing analysis on the observations, and making reasonable conclusions based on the analysis results. The experiments and results must be published and scrutinized by reasoned peer review.
If this Georges Lakhovsky person conducted his therapies for various diseases successfully over a decade without large complaints being raised by families of unsuccessfully treated patients, this speaks favorably that there is some substantiation of his concepts. Oldspammer 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
Clinical studies can be constructed purposefully by entities who have opposing viewpoints to discredit the work and results of those who present competing ideas or ideologies or products or services. Such is the political nature of the world in which we live. It should be clear from this that any studies should be open to scrutiny by being published to the web somewhere and that verifiable testimonies and evidence be independently provided or available.
In the case of this and similar devices government / military science labs world-wide could conduct experiments and publish the results to prove or disprove the theories and claims of such individuals and their devices in a reasoned, unbiased way regardless of the impact on pharmacological corporate profits. Oldspammer 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
If you feel that this article should be deleted, then don't bandy about reverting my edits--just say that because the subject person of the article lived so long ago, there are too few reliable sources to provide citations for the facts that can be given.
On the other hand, if you are one of the people who think that this guy was a painter, then start an article about the painter. The web references that I provided all refer to this person as an engineer, regardless. If this guy got his education prior to the Communist revolution in Russia, then it is likely that there is not going to be a recording that he was educated at engineering school XYZ in Russia. I placed a fact template on the Minsk claim because I found nowhere where this claim could be found via Google researching. Now that you have reverted my edits, that template is now gone.
What are you doing?
What do you intend to do next? Oldspammer 17:08, 7 July 2007 (UTC)
Using Google I could not find the birth date for this guy as accurately as was inserted into the article, so I put a fact template on the birth place and the exact month / day given. I can only find that he was from Russia, and that the year of his birth was as given in the current article.
The above IP user / someone at some point inserted the exact date, and that George L was a painter leads me to think that the painter might have been born in Minsk on that exact day / month, but possibly not that year?
If the IP user would have taken the time, he / she would have seen that the entire article was about an electronics scientist / inventor of a medical treatment device, and not 'a painter.' Any such fact templates regarding his being an engineering or scientist should be questioned in regard to G.L.'s being the painter of completely dissimilar first and middle names. Oldspammer 11:02, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Is this fellow actually notable? All the sources used are rather far off from WP:RS Adam Cuerden talk 02:07, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
From WP:RS:
An entire page that ignores WP:RS in every source is not really in line with that. Also, your comments are pure POV, and not really relevant. Adam Cuerden talk 17:45, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I have rewritten the article in accordance with WP:RS and WP:FRINGE. I am not sure whether it is notable enough to be retained at all. LeContexte ( talk) 12:27, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
References
<ref>
tags on this page without content in them (see the
help page). and "The Waves That Heal" by Mark Clement.
References
It is quite obvious this article was wrote or edited by someone with resentment to non-traditional medicinal methods. I must remember: an encyclopedia do not serve the purpose of insulting, an encyclopedia serve the purpose of showing information. Was not the case of serving to this purpose (insulting) for criminal figures like Hitler (a known genocide), and it is obvious it will not be the case for people with different methods to approach the treatment of illnesses. I am just comparing a criminal (not insulted in an encyclopedia) with a researcher (insulted in this article). The entry: "considered quackery by mainstream medicine" Is clearly and directly defamatory. There are doctors that do not think in this way, and that term is falsely assertive (it is, by its very nature, asserting that all people think in this way, which IS NOT TRUE). The article hide vital facts about George Lakhovsky, for example, that his studies were accomplished in the Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in France, a very reputable place (known internationally) with people so emminent Jean Martin Charcot (father of the modern neurology)... hence again we have an assertive phrase to tend to ridicule Mr. Lakhovsky. No recent peer-reviewed, funded scientific studies have investigated these claims so they are not accepted by mainstream science. (See below mention of American Cancer Society information.) Perhaps the American Cancer Society could refresh their historical sources, to gather up this information, which is hidden in this article (I do not know why). The article continue insulting, now with the word quackery: There is no support in peer-reviewed medical literature for the efficacy of the devices propounded by Lakhovsky. The American Cancer Society (ACS) treats all electromedical treatments as quackery.
I do not have to remember, that Einstein oppossed to Newton with his theory or relativity (and also suffered attacks), like in this article. Newton was the equivalent to the equivalent of "mainstream medicine" (in physics) by those times. With this, I am showing to you, healthy information do not attack or show personal oppinions, just inform, being impartial. I'm not very skilled in the use of Wikipedia, but I will upload public domain pictures, in which Dr. Lakhovsky, treated, and CURED different kind of cancers, in plants (Geraniums) and Humans. And yes, I mean, HUMANS. (You understood it well). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.35.123.211 ( talk) 12:13, 28 October 2010 (UTC)
Totally unsourced stub, how does this pass notabilty? Slatersteven ( talk) 14:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)