Talk:Georges Lakhovsky

Tesla electromagnetic notes

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. 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).

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

Untitled

IBID, 2000 - Gerry Vasslatos, page 30, 39, 42, 43.</ref>

Old talk

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)

I updated the wording of the text so as not to be so "wow" about the subject.

I added some links to demonstrate some of the dates involved. I used a lot of Google searches that will be less likely to go out of date than most hard-coded URLs would do over a considerable length of time. Oldspammer 23:13, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Due to complaints elsewhere, I am trying to convert some of the google search references to individual links that may have been listed in the results of the google searches. That is, if someone does not again revert my careful edits for inexplicable reasons kept to themselves. Oldspammer 17:26, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Pseudoscience?

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)

This is not how science works. The testimony of several individuals is not scientific proof. ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

It's not about a proof for his work. It's about the fact that there isn't any against either. Claiming something as proven or disproven asks for evidence in the form supporting documents based on experiments and studies. Beyond that any assumption without claim is legit. Ehrenfriedsaal (talk) 10:42, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

This is not how science works either. "Some say this, others say that, so we do not know, and the claim is legit" is not a useful method. Instead, the burden of proof is on the claimant. Until then, he is just some guy with a claim. And if he claims to do science when he is not, he is a pseudoscientist. --Hob Gadling (talk) 11:23, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

That is what science is, you provide proof that is accepted by independent experts who can repeat your findings.Slatersteven (talk) 12:22, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

Exactly. Once something is proven it becomes scientific standard. Everything else is just Hypothesis. But it also has some value until there is proof of contrary. Ehrenfriedsaal (talk) 21:11, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Debunking

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)

On the contrary, the primary task of a scientist is to attempt to falsify theories that others have presented. This is what Einstein did (General Relativity refutes Newtonian Mechanics). This is what Galileo did (Heliocentrism refutes Geocentrism). This is not "political". This is how science progresses. Everything we believe must stand up to repeated attempts to refute it.

To your second point, note that the "qui bono" argument does not actually work. Pseudo-science is a source of income for those who promote it. They sell books, get money for talks, sell services and equipment. Who is more motivated to bend the truth? An individual who needs people to believe in their products to earn millions for themselves? Or a scientist at a major institution who really just wants to be famous for doing good science? Why is it easier to believe in dark invisible conspiracies by large corporations than in common quackery? Which is easier to pull off? ---- CharlesGillingham (talk) 22:43, 1 July 2018 (UTC)

Contribute constructively please

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)

Birth date so exact

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.

Revision as of 02:00, 19 June 2007 (edit) (undo) 87.122.106.226 (Talk)

(deleted pov, Lakhovsky was not an engineer)

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)

So what is Lakhovsky's year of birth 1869 (as per the lede) or 1870 (as per the infobox)? Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:02, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

I just had a look at the French WP page and it has 1870 and 1873. Wyatt Tyrone Smith (talk) 14:03, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

Notability

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)

Notable--Certainly, YES. Many Lakhovsky MWOs are sold world-wide. There is mounting anecdotal evidence that thousands of people's lives have been saved from incurable disease by such devices. This subject person and his invention(s) is (are) of historic importance (of note) to alternative medicine. Notability is a deletionist argument for suppression of information that 'they' do not agree with (POV) or that threatens 'the establishment.' By establishment I mean allopathic medical associations & practitioners, biologists who have no practical experimental physics backgrounds, and pseudoscientists who are unwilling to double-blind study electromagnetic medical treatments compared to currently established medical practice treatments. When no evidence is collected, then no evidence-based medicine will result. Find for me in Pub-Med any studies conducted to prove or disprove this technology! You will find none.

WP:RS you mistake for being policy--it is a guideline. Alternative medicine web sites are authoritative on alternative medicine. What were you thinking? Are you advocating suppression of alternative medicine information so that no Wikipedia references point so such sites? When conventional medicine can do nothing but watch a patient die, it is time to try alternatives to "expensive care" suffering! Oldspammer 17:09, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

From WP:RS:

This page is considered a content guideline on Wikipedia. It is generally accepted among editors and is considered a standard that all users should follow. However, it is not set in stone and should be treated with common sense and the occasional exception.

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)

Consider this, the number of reference sources went from 37 down to 2. The person had two patents. Reference to the patents can be made right? Or no? Oldspammer 21:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

They can be referenced, if reliably sourced, but you can't make up things about how patents work. A patent does not necessarily mean the device works. Edison, for instance, patented a device for communicating with spirits. Adam Cuerden ^talk 00:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you be specific about Mr. Edison's invention--what patent number was it? When I searched via google patents and eliminated the words "mineral spirits" from the search, nothing came up. Oldspammer 16:39, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

No response? Edison may have intended to invent such a device, but I can't find it as a patented invention. To my knowledge patented devices must demonstrate the claims made to the satisfaction of the patent office. This is why in "modern times" perpetual motion machines cannot be patented (without some form of demonstration that the claims are valid). For me your claim that patents of the 1920s-2000s are frivolous flights of fancy has not been substantiated. I am sure that some other awarded patent of the 1800s (or so) can be unearthed that does not really work, but this guy patented most of his stuff in the 1900s when more attention was paid to such demonstrable evidence. Oldspammer 07:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Rewrite

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)

The article was not tagged with any outstanding clean-up requirements. Previous editors had removed unsourced and not WP:RS information. None of the remaining references were not WP:RS. What you did was of a questionable nature. For one thing, you did not place any fact tags on any statements that you found questionable to afford an opportunity for other contributors to locate and cite WP:RS sources, nor did you first discuss your issues on this talk page.

This is the ploy often used by deletionists against historical figures involved in alternative medicine. Even WP:RS material is deleted, then when nothing is left of the ransacked article, the question is posed: what is the notability of this now that the article was largely deleted by the ravages of waves of deletionist edits. The deletionsits who do not make clean edits to the articles, often break some of the references that are named and cited in different spots in the article(s).

The citations of patents being awarded are reliable, and can be sourced from any of the patent search engines available now online. Any patent claims must be examined by a qualified patent examiner. These examiners are physicists, medical doctors, biologists, and engineers and they are able to confer over the findings. This is how many patents are rejected rather than awarded.

Often times a discovery with military applications is sequestered by the military on the basis of national security, the patent is not awarded, and all of the prototypes, lab notes are confiscated from the inventor who made the discovery. In these cases there will certainly not be a peer-reviewed scientific study paper published by any science or medical journals on the topic.

There are a relatively small number of qualified scientists and medical doctor researchers to investigate and study the many thousands of inventions that appear each decade. Well qualified scientists have much higher than average incomes and are employed by research and regulatory organizations with huge financial standings. The cost of filing a patent is relatively small. However, it is said that in order for the FDA to approve a medical device with curative claims that the cost can run regularly to US$200 million (a figure quoted by Bob Beck in 1998). There are no medical device inventor individuals with that kind of money, and relatively few corporate entities who have that kind of money, and none of these will want to spend such funds on a device that might inexpensively be produced and used--there is no way to recover the investment. The conclusions can be made that "large financial interests" determine what medical treatments, and cures are made available to the American public coerced largely on the factor of this large approval cost. Such large financial interests exist in the pharmaceutical industry. These corporations are not going to fund studies on equipment that might bankrupt themselves, and all of their competitors.

There is an excellent set of videos on Google video from Bob Beck. In one of the many handfuls of video available, one of them has a commentary from G. Edward Griffiths who is a documentary film researcher and maker. In the video there are a "huge number" of testimonials given by people who went through some sometimes horrendous experiences with their dealings with allopathic medical diagnosis and treatments, but at about the 1h:13m mark in the video, Google Video of bob-beck-protocol+a-health-protocol G. Edward Griffiths explains his experiences with helping a M.D. friend of his be able to treat his cancer patients in the way the M.D. had found had best worked (not necessarily with the Beck Protocol). Griffiths explains some of the politics that were involved, and a historical perspective of how this situation came into being.

The science of Tesla's radiant energy is not well understood, nor documented in text books, nor incorporated into computer circuit simulation software, nor taught in places of higher education. In the article I have placed a note about Tesla and related scientists performing experiments in these areas:

References

The purpose of reliably sourced this text is to illustrate that actual scientific investigation (real experiments) must be conducted, and that the claims made remain "an open-issue" until then--that is, that the machine is known to work on some patients and known not to work on others. These were the findings of the researcher Robert C. Beck, DSc. Physics, during his investigations of the machine in the 1960s-1980s. While he did not himself conduct clinical study treatments, he designed and setup the prototype equipment, and made it available for "patients" to try experimentally on themselves, and from these experiments the findings were published in alternative medicine circles since Beck was not an M.D. nor sanctioned by any regulatory body to publish such findings anywhere else.

In case you missed it, John D. Rockefeller in part sponsored the Flexner report right after Rockefeller had purchased a German pharmaceutical company. It was Rockefeller's deliberate intent to eliminate electro-medicine as a competitor with his pharma investments. There was no actual scientific experimentation to demonstrate that various electro-medical devices of the time were equivalent to quackery, excepting possibly radionics--a field that supposedly relies heavily on the psychic powers of the operator of the machines. Since the closings of many medical schools post-Flexner report, students of medicine, biology, physics, and engineering have been duped into believing that all electro-medicine is quackery when, indeed, there are few if any sanctioned scientific investigations into the matter to show anything one way or the other.

You'll surely correct me if I'm wrong, but today things may be changing. An Arizona group of medical doctors has put together patented, and FDA approved electro-magnetic treatment device. Perform a Google search for >Provant Wound Closure System with Cell Proliferation Induction (CPI)<

There are patents on record for remotely monitoring biological electromagnetic signals such as brain waves, and cardio impulses. In the patent's claims discussion is information relating to the importance of impedance matching of the receiving equipment's antenna to sense the remote individual's biological signals.

Further in this regard, it is well known that low voltage-high current systems tend to need a low impedance in order to work, whereas, high-voltage-low current systems can operate in a higher impedance environment. The Lakhovsky device uses technology that involves many facets that could conceivably interact with a biological organism because it uses Tesla's radiant energy (of which little solid information is known or published--and could interact with practically any matter or energy), very high-voltages (that could impedance-match various body tissue types appropriately for energy transfer), and extreme wide-band signaling (that could cause resonance oscillations with various biological constituents of living organisms).

Stanley Meyers developed water molecule fracturing technology that is now being reproduced world wide. Videos of successful inventor/experimenters running Meyer reproduction apparatus are all over Google Videos and You-tube. Meyer used unipolar high-voltage, phase-lock-tuned resonant frequency pulses, and pulsed LED photon radiation to optimize this fracturing process. No heat per-sé is produced by this form of highly-enhanced electrolysis, and the electrical current used is many times less than is predicted by 1800s scientific laws and principles (Faraday) for the amount of hydrogen gas being prodigiously produced. Stanley, however, was found fraudulent in his intent to immediately release patent licenses to manufacturers so that dealership investors would be quickly able to recoup their investments by selling the engine conversion kits to the public.

It would be a flight of extremely poor judgment to dismiss the ability for electro-medicine to have some effects on the stuff of matter: electrons, protons, neutrons, other sub-atomic, theoretical particles, and various forces that interact with them. Transmutation of matter is being reported in the Pons and Fleishman cold fusion process that was initially dismissed when it was originally disclosed in 23rd March of 1989. Contrary to the slanted POV WP article on CF, steady reports of successful Pons-Fleishman experiment reproduction have kept coming in from the time that the findings were announced. It has been reported that chemical elements not in any of the electrodes or electrolyte material are manifesting themselves during the process and that, indeed, excess energy is being released and tapped as in the original experiment.

It is now a common criticism of modern science (that has in part resulted from the efforts of the Carnegie foundation / endowment on our educational institutions) that the field of science is too compartmentalized. Specialists in one area are isolated, and do not cross-pollinate information originating from supposedly unrelated fields of science. No scientists or engineers seem to be permitted to shift their fields of investigation without having to be completely re-educated, and accredited in the other field. And if trying to do so without accreditation, are criticized, ridiculed, and ostracized as being mad or something, and at least de-funded. Funding plays too deep a role in what various scientists tend to report in their published experiments because many published journal articles are about a single product being developed by a pharma company for example, and its efficacy is not necessarily compared against the currently known most effective competing treatment. In this way the findings are deceptive. Reports of bad results of a trial have been known to be suppressed to protect the pharma company's financial investment (check the internet for various of the anti-depressants that tended to induce suicides in children and youths--these side-effects were known, but suppressed from the scholarly literature by the companies involved--yet the drugs were approved and no requirement for product warning labels were given).

Oldspammer (talk) 14:41, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Recent efforts to reproduce Lakhovsky's work

Robert C. Beck, DSc. Physics, in 1963 unearthed an original model MWO in the basement of a southern California hospital. Beck took it apart and described exactly how it was built in a series of articles published by the Journal of Borderland Research in 1963. One such article was entitled "The Russian Lakhovsky Rejuvenation Machine." After Beck's articles were published, a number of builders began to assemble MWOs, and information about the research began to circulate within the alternative medicine community.

In one of Beck's 1998 lectures about Blood electrification Bob makes mention of a celebrity from the 1950s having successfully undergone Lakhovsky MWO treatments in the mid-1960s where the man's inoperable cancer went into remission. That man supposedly could not handle his reprieve from death, and the man drove the wrong way on a California freeway and killed 4 other people in a head-on crash.

Subsequent to Dr. Bob Beck's pioneering efforts, the following books were published: 1963 "MWO Handbook" by Thomas J. Brown, and "The Waves That Heal" by Mark Clement.

Where are the unreliable sources? When did you mark this part of the article with any tags to indicate that you were not satisfied with the sources? This text only says that these books were written, and the sources show that these statements are indeed correct? This looks more like you have vandalized the article for POV purposes known only to yourself! 99.224.77.98 (talk) 18:47, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

References

Article is defamatory

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.

• FALSE Dr. Lakhovsky documented his research and accomplished it in several hospitals, the most important Pitié-Salpêtrière Hospital in France. I have the books in french and the documentation that prove it. Are books coming from the early 20s, so they are difficult to manipulate (pages brake easily) for scanning purposes, but I will do that, and show the relevant information.

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)

AFD

Totally unsourced stub, how does this pass notabilty?Slatersteven (talk) 14:41, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

He will easily pass GNG, but there are problems with dated sources and accessibility, and how to present some things in the article. Biography details and his cellular oscillation basis of life theories can probably be sourced to La Vie et les Ondes or various reviews and newspaper articles. All silly stuff but an accurate description of what he believed is possible even though the sources are dated.

The cancer treatment and wave healing parts are problematic and for some we need probably need WP:MEDRS. That Hyperthermia note implies he stumbled upon shortwave diathermy, he did have some success with his treatments and I believe he was the first person to use radio frequency electromagnetic radiation in the treatment of human tumors. This gets cited for the iffy PMID 24206915, i think tumor treating fields. Don't think either of those are good enough to explain what "some success" means per MEDRS.

Probably best to make clear it's radionics and quote from American Cancer Society's guide. fiveby (talk) 16:04, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Then where are the sources to establish GNG?Slatersteven (talk) 16:05, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

A biography in French La vie et les ondes: L'œuvre de Georges Lakhovsky, newspaper accounts, reviews of works. these results will provide some reliable sources, as will some of the citations to his works. You could try an Afd based on the article being problematic, but don't think it would work. fiveby (talk) 16:37, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

As you have found these source please add them.Slatersteven (talk) 16:42, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I am glacially slow at working on articles, but making progress. To be clear, i don't have access to La vie et les ondes and don't know the reliability. fiveby (talk) 17:03, 7 March 2020 (UTC)