Talk:Georges Lakhovsky

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Pseudoscience?

message: 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)
thread_title: Contribute constructively please

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title: Birth date so exact

message: :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.Lecture: "Suppressed Medical Discovery" - Granada Forum, Dr. Bob Beck, 1998 - Blood electrification.  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)
thread_title: Recent efforts to reproduce Lakhovsky's work

message: 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)
thread_title: Article is defamatory