Talk:Biophoton

message: There are several distinct threads in this article that need to be teased apart. 
Firstly, on the scientific side of things, a distinction needs to be maintained between the emission/detection of biophotons, and the function/signaling quality of biophotons.
The emission of biophotons is not disputed. Just take a photomultiplier tube (PMT), stick it in a dark box with some living tissue and compare counts to the empty box. If you don't have a PMT and still think that its disputed, then find a peer reviewed article that diputes it. 
The function of biophotons as a signaling mechanism is not nearly as clear. Gurwitsch's original papers have recived some criticism, and there isn't much else attempting to demonstrate functional signaling. A notable exception is Albrecht-Buehler's work, which is published in the mainstream scientific journal PNAS:
http://www.pnas.org/cgi/reprint/89/17/8288
Although this paper does not mention other work on spontaneous ultraweak photon emission from living tissues, it does nicely demonstrate that such photon emission is used for intercellular communication.
Secondly, non-scientific aspects of the phenomena are by definition distinct from scientific aspects, and so should be kept seperate at all times throughout the article, or even better, placed in a different article all together.
cheers,
Fletch
— Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.162.78.130 (talk) 01:25, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification

message: I have restored the NPOV and accuracy tags to the top of this page, as, after 3 years of edits, it remains a complete train wreck of blatant POV, pseudoscientific nonsense and a virtual total lack of any skeptical viewpoint regarding the subject. The entire article is rife with laughable nonsense such as "The detection of these photons has been made possible due to the development of sensitive modern photomultipliers. Because of this, the existence of this radiation is no longer disputed..." and other similar statements make this article in my opinion an embarassment to wikipedia. The supposed study of "biophotons" is about as far outside of the mainstream of the biological sciences as you can get. I am starting edits now. --Deglr6328 00:33, 4 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Disastrously horrid article

message: Deglr, this was an excellent rewrite!  Yet, I do think that your condemnation of this scientific exploration is a bit harsh.
In 2006, there is certainly not a narrowly identifiable "mainstream" of the biological sciences anymore, given the rapid acceleration in hundreds of research directions that currently exists.  Also, how can electromagnetic radiation emitting from biological tissues ever be outside the mainstream of biological science, when all interactions between molecules are interactions between atoms, and interactions between atoms are essentially electromagnetic (electron, proton, etc.).
I have recently completed a survey of research in this field on behalf of a high-level Russian spectral physicist who has been asked by an international team to develop new instrumentation for investigations in this area.  In the past five years, solid articles have been published in reputable science journals (including Journal Photochemistry Photobiology B; Indian J Exp Biol; Übersichtsarbeit; Journal of Biological Optics; Virtual Journal of Biological Optics; Optics Letters; Cellular and Molecular Life Sciences (CMLS); Bioelektronika; Bioelectromagnetics; Naturwissenschaften) by many researchers other than POPP (IIB, Germany), including TUCHIN Russia: Saratov State University); INABA (Japan: Research Institute of Electrical Communication, Tohoku University, Katahira 2-1-1, 980 Sendai, (Japan); SCHWABL   (Switzerland: Padma AG, Schwerzenbach, Switzerland); VAN WIJK   (Netherlands:  Faculty of Biology, Utrecht University); NIGGLI   (Switzerland: BioFoton AG); RUBIK (U.S.) and SWAIN  (US, Boston: Northeastern University).
It seems to have been shown that photons are coming out of cells in the visible and NIR spectral range, albeit ultraweak emissions.  The cause seems to be not yet well explained, with numerous theories proposed.
This remains a fascinating frontier of real science, where perhaps skepticism, as previously for the round Earth, plate tectonics and global warming, will be shouted ever more loudly right up to the brink of a paradigm shift. -- Jlancaster 02:04, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: hmm ok well what I mean by the field being 'out of the mainstream' is that I think we can agree that it is not really a phenomenon which is accepted as even really existing by the vast majority of biologists/biochemists. I mean its not like you see in all the latest papers an "ultraweak photon assay" or "biophoton count" or some such as a diagnostic tool. In fact I would point to a scitation search returning very very few papers throughout the past 20 years which mention the subject. Anyway I'd like to see the papers to which you are referring, I can't say I'm guaranteed to be bowled over (SPIE, for instance seems to have no problem publishing any old load of hideous rubbish ) but it would certainly be worth a look. --Deglr6328 06:45, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Praise for rewrite, urge open mind on science

message: I added the template  to this section. Phrases like "This contrasts biophotons with actually controversial topics" make this section very one-sided in favor of the phenomenon. This section should describe the skepticism, not refute it. --Ginkgo100talk 00:56, 13 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skepticism section 

message: This article, which I was going to disambigulate, appears to have been written by at least three views... I have found some papers, but if you read this guy first "Wise Geek" you'll find some similarities with the present article. Some papers are like this one Research???, and there are a few that offer *.pdf files. The author is real and is a professor in the physics department at the University of Helsinki. His homepage; here, puts him in an odd light.
Thinghy 23:58, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Schizophrenic article 

message: Is there any scientific truth in biophotons or is it mere pseudo-science? The claims here are quite similar to those made by quantum medicine, as practiced in scandinavia. It holds that illnesses can be cured by machines transmitting certain electromagnetic frequencies to the body. 129.177.30.18 (talk) 17:55, 28 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I can tell, the claim that biological tissue emits photons is legit. (It isn't very surprising either) But it doesn't seem likely that these play any part in the metabolism. The article seems to deal OK with this. The article clearly can use some work, with some good refs in the right place. But the subject itself seems to be legit object of research. (TimothyRias (talk) 10:59, 29 January 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with TimothyRias. It seems like the field has plenty of pseudoscience within it, but the article (to its credit) describes it as such. Even if the field was 100% pseudoscience (and it may or may not be), that's not in itself a reason to get rid of the article -- after all we have an article on astrology too. :-) --Steve (talk) 01:09, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

text: Hello! biophotonic emission was discovered by Alexander Gurwitsch in the early 1920s at a time when people were looking for organising forces in the cell. Others failed to replicate his findings. This turned out to be due to faulty equipment but it meant that Gurwitsch was mocked as a pseudoscientist in the USA while Russia used his photonics as a cancer diagnosis for decades! He was only vindicated after his death. So the present results are;
1)existence of biophotism - true
2)association with life-organisation - not proven
3)responds to malignancy - accepted by Russian but not western medical science.
4)cures cancer - pseudoscientific claim still made in the west.
hope this helps. Redheylin (talk) 01:07, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

text: What are your sources for this claim? Martin Hogbin (talk) 10:57, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Believable claims?

message: I am taking this out for discussion as it appears to be self-published and non-notable. Redheylin (talk) 01:47, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Dillon

message: The History section states, "He named them 'mitogenetic rays' because his experiments convinced him that they had a stimulating effect on cell division...Their common basic hypothesis was that the phenomenon was induced from rare oxidation processes and radical reactions. Gurwitsch's basic observations were vindicated."
In other words, Gurwitsch felt that biophotons were notable because they increased cell division, and his daughters discovered that biophotons were emitted by "rare oxidation processes and radical reactions" (whatever that means).
But claiming that this shows Gurwitsch to have been vindicated is nonsense, since discovering the cause of biophotons does not show that they increase cell division.
I'm afraid of editing this section, as I have no idea where the truth is in this muddle of pseudoscience. David Spector (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nonsense in History section 

message: In my opinion, the page should be scrapped, and remade according to WP guidelines under the article 'Photon' or some other more suitable article as it is a scientific term which has been misinterpreted.Muthu raama (talk) 13:48, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irrelevant data 

message: I think we should start with a section on detection, which I have added. THis is the most solid part of the subject. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:20, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Detection section

message: I added a pseudoscience tag and it was rapidly removed.  We need to decide if this is correct.
Comments?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 23:16, 22 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: As noted, "See also" is not for categorizing or commenting on the topic. Second, the fact that some individuals make pseudoscience out from an actual and observed physical phenomenon doesn't mean that everything about it is pseudoscience. You could also add the same to Quantum mechanics since a lot of quackery surrounds that, too. ... And if you want to speculate why biophotons appear (this is apparently the problem?), then one could think of the decomposition of the cycloaddition product of singlet oxygen and an alkene, both known to be present in biological systems. But, the sources given seem to be regular scientific articles. Biophotons as a topic of scientific research is valid: it is falsifiable, detectable by anyone possessing a sensitive photomultiplier, knowledge about it may be improved upon scientifically, and it has been published well by multiple independent groups in reputable journals. --vuo (talk) 00:04, 23 March 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the best way forward is to have a section called, 'Highly speculative theories' or the like.  Perhaps we should also have a section on Quackery. Martin Hogbin (talk) 14:14, 27 March 2013 (UTC)

text: I was the one who removed the pseudoscience tag because I reorganised the article to separete the genuine academic research on the subject from the pseudoscience.  The pseudoscience has not been ignored and is now identified as such. We now have a section on speculative theories and quackery.  There is real research on this subject, biophotons have been detected and imaged.  As you point out yourself, just because there is much pseudoscience spouted on the internet about biophotons does not mean that the subject itself is pseudoscientific nonsense. Martin Hogbin (talk) 22:01, 14 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pseudoscience  

message: Coherent? Given the stated intensity no more than 1 photon will be in existence at a time so coherence is meaningless.
For semi-periodic this needs a reference and a believable one at that.  If no such reference can be found then this needs to go into the Pseudoscience section. Mtpaley (talk) 23:11, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Popp proposed that the radiation might be both semi-periodic and coherent. 

message: The reference for this is terrible.
For example
"photons interact with beating cilia lining those ventricles and are guided by the beat timing to form interference patterns in the ventricular spaces, creating an interface (a nexus) through which a tiny portion of the "light of God" is able to animate the corpus"
"
The other source of light available to interact with endogenous photons is the larger population of virtual photons filling space outside our normal frame of reference. Conventional wisdom has virtual photons popping in and out of existence even within our own frame of reference, but has little to say about the vast network of interconnected light that virtual photons must inhabit outside of our normal frame of reference because light experiences no time. The endogenous light nexus thus brings a tiny volume of that virtual photon network into contact with and control of a brain and body, and it is in that virtual network that the self-awareness of consciousness actually resides
"
Another section "Kaznacheyev announced that his research team in Novosibirsk had detected intercellular communication by means of these rays".  Reference is stated but not available but the summary is "The Cycles of Heaven: Cosmic Forces and What They Are Doing to You."
More work is required in separating the pseudoscience from genuine science.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mtpaley (talk • contribs) 23:20, 23 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:   It has even been proposed that biophotons play an important role in consciousness  - still pseudoscience 

message: This article was almost deleted on the grounds that it consisted mainly of pseudoscience and quackery.  I was one of those instrumental in saving it because there is some limited genuine research into the subject.
On the other hand, most of the material to be found on the internet on the subject is pure pseudoscientific nonsense.  We need to make this clear, not just for the benefit of our readers but to avoid another move to delete the article on the grounds that it is all pseudoscience.
'Controversy' is too weak a word to describe what is cited as an example in the section below, which is just a word salad.  We need to make clear that there is no science in this at all. Martin Hogbin (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I suggested 'controversy' as a compromise after 'outrageous' was deleted. But I agree with your take on the article and am personally fine with stronger wording. --Mark viking (talk) 09:16, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

text: I have added some criticism regarding quantum medicine and biophoton therapy with additional references to back it up. I think emphasizing that these claims are unproven psuedoscience is probably the way to go. --Mark viking (talk) 10:25, 8 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Quackery vs Controversy 

message: I'm a little disappointed nobody referenced so-called Divine Healers under the psuedoscience/quackery section. Branham - most likely having seen the Nat Enquirer, declared "the whole body is made of light! and that light is life force! x-rays steal life force!" or something to that effect. Totally insane. 64.178.146.176 (talk) 16:22, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Why not add something yourself? Martin Hogbin (talk) 21:57, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  ... what, no healer quackery? 

message: The is some conflation in the section between the, highly speculative, theory that biophotons are a form of cellular communication and the, more mainstream, research which shows that biophotons could be a useful measure of cell stress of various kinds. Martin Hogbin (talk) 12:03, 15 September 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Academic speculation 

message: I'm working on another page for a project for my intro neuroscience class, and I have come across a medium-small but still decent amount of articles from accepted scientific journals (and I hadn't even been specifically searching the topic) that support the existence of bio-photons. Much of the information out there does seem to be quackery, but some very new articles do approach the topic in a serious manner. I was able to access these articles through Scopus and similar databases, most of which require an account (which I get through my college) so unfortunately the information isn't quite as accessible to the general public. I just wanted to say that there is serious scientific work in this field, so perhaps the page doesn't warrant total deletion. And I'd be happy to point someone towards the articles that I was able to find. Joy1818 (talk) 01:41, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it has already been agreed that there is some reality to biophotons although there is much pseudoscience associated with the subject.  Please let us know what you wish to add or, of course, add it yourself with references.  I do not think that there would be any problem in providing short extracts from your sources for readers here. Martin Hogbin (talk) 09:36, 10 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  There is some scientific support 

message: This article is out of date and there are numerous references on the web, including encyclopedia entries, that use the exact same language as this article.  The mention in the article indicating the power of biophotons detected in living systems is repeatedly used on other pages, and no references are provided for any of them.  I have updated the page with a reference from Fritz Popp, and I updated the language accordingly.
The duplicate entries all over the web appear to indicate that there is little information available about this topic.  It also calls into question the origination of this text.  In order to clean this up, I have rewritten the introductory paragraphs to make them more readable and accessible.  There are many other changes that need to be made on this page, for example, there are recent studies that have investigated cellular communication and the effects of ultraviolet light on abrasions. Additional modifications could result in a very valuable source of information since most of the information that I found on the internet is currently out of date related to this topic.
Tunsa (talk) 09:33, 26 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Repeated Content and Circular Info on the Web 

message: There is no known chemical process that produces ultraviolet light. There is also no known process in nature that can produce non-thermal ultraviolet light.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.204 (talk) 12:32, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Chemical Ultraviolet light 

message: There is no evidence that biophotons are imaginary or a hoax. The Kyobashi Biophoton lab has undertaken extensive research and the results are obvious proof. http://www.eis.tohtech.ac.jp/study/labs/kobayashi/BiophotonGalleryE.html  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.172.0.200 (talk) 12:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research and Papers 

message: I would like to delete this quote:"there are always charlatans who believe in these miracles." only because it is a vocabulary mistake. Charlatans are the ones who perpetuate the belief in miracles. It is the victims of charlatans that believe. It can be argued that the essential meaning and intent of the phrase is fairly obvious. Still, I don't think such a mistake should be directly quoted. The article would be better served if the quote was replaced by a paraphrase that makes more sense. Cuvtixo (talk) 13:51, 6 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removing "there are always charlatans who believe in these miracles." 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Biophoton. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071111233517/http://tohtech.ac.jp/~elecs/ca/kobayashilab_hp/NewScientistE.html to http://www.tohtech.ac.jp/~elecs/ca/kobayashilab_hp/NewScientistE.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110622160159/http://www.iocob.nl/english-articles/biophoton-therapy-an-appraisal.html to http://www.iocob.nl/english-articles/biophoton-therapy-an-appraisal.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:35, 20 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Why restore this ? First phrase: "Many claims with no scientific proof have been made for cures and diagnosis using biophotons". First of all, there is no really such thing as "biophoton" in science (may be this is a catchword?). There are only photons. Secondly, let's check the source . This is a questionable source per existing consensus . What it tells on the subject of biophotons rather than of Quantum healing (which is a quackery)? Only one paragraph about "ELF Laboratory, Inc., which markets the LBG™ Light Beam Generator" etc.? This is not good enough. An alleged medical device is not working? Fine, but this is a medical claim. Please find a MEDRS source, rather than one which was self-published.. And so it goes. Every phrase in this section is poorly sourced, irrelevant or strange. The only another source used in the paragraph is that one. Are you saying this is an RS? My very best wishes (talk) 00:37, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps one could create a page about Biophoton therapy, but we have already page Low-level laser therapy. My very best wishes (talk) 01:11, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title: Irrelevant and poorly sourced materials