Talk:Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine)

message: The PEFT article is obviously under much stress of its own as evidenced by a busy editor that has been deleting lots of content on the 
PEFT page all day.   Merging it with something like this was a very capitolistic oppritunity to take advantage of while this artile is up for deletion  but this article already has its own contraversy without piling more on top.   
Novocure is chaging the former predominate view with clinical acceptence , that means many of the claims that "all medical machines are radonic 
bullocks"   Those claims lose their validity.   And since this article is all about that the deletion is limited to that.  If you want the PEFT
article deleted you need to do it yourself instead of attempting to merge it here after a day minor deleting all the bits and parts.  I won't do it for you. 
Such an editing style is greatly troubling indeed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 1zeroate (talk • contribs) 01:05, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You may express your views on this merge suggestion here on the Talk page, but please do not remove the  template until the discussion period has completed.  You may not unilaterally remove a merge template placed in good faith like that while discussion is just getting under way. Zad68 02:18, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

text: An outcome of "merge" is a perfectly normal AFD discussion outcome and there's nothing wrong with suggesting it. Zad68 02:35, 16 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger discussion 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Electromagnetic therapy (alternative medicine). 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/20080204225953/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080204225953/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp to http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp
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) 03:31, 19 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Some of the research and sources cited here are getting a little long in the tooth. I'm going to see what I can come up with to bring this page up to speed. Questions, comments, concerns, helpful resources, and general relevant thoughts can be directed here or to my talk page. Cheers Rap Chart Mike (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Taking the rewrite live. I've rearranged the content, cleaned up the lede and the language. Added substantially more sourcing and content showing the ineffective nature of alternative uses. I'm very sure that others will let me know what's inappropriate to the page or what should be different. Ideally this edit draws attention and further edits for even more improvement. Rap Chart Mike (talk) 18:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Boy this page has gone through some changes. Lots of back and forth, but nice improvements. I really like the idea of having more photographs related to this, so much more interesting to SEE.Sgerbic (talk) 01:40, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Researching an update to the article 

message: refs in proposed new version:
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# 
# Rosch, P. & Marko S. Markov. "Bioelectromagnetic Medicine". Informa Health Care, 2004. , . Republished by Google books. Accessed 8 June 2009.
# 
# 
# 
# 
refs in former version:
# 
# 
#
# Rosch, P. & Marko S. Markov. "Bioelectromagnetic Medicine". Informa Health Care, 2004. , . Republished by Google books. Accessed 8 June 2009.
#
#
# 
#
# 
#
Just posting for now, will comment below. Jytdog (talk) 20:13, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  refs 

message: ; refs that were in old version, that are still in new version
* A) 18) in new and 10) in old:  
* B) 19) in new and 8) in old: 
* C) 20) in new and 6) in old: 
* D) 21) in new and 7) in old : 
* E) 22) in new and 5) in old: 
* F) 23) in new 4) in old: Rosch, P. & Marko S. Markov. "Bioelectromagnetic Medicine". Informa Health Care, 2004. , . Republished by Google books. Accessed 8 June 2009.
* G) 24) in new and 3) in old: 
* H) 25) in new and 2) in old: 
* I) 26) in new and 1) in old: 
* J) 26) in new and 9) in old 
; refs new in new version
* 1) 
* 2) 
* 3) 
* 4) 
* 5) 
* 6)  
* 7) 
* 8) 
* 9) 
* 10) 
* 11) 
* 12) 
* 13) 
* 14) 
* 15) 
* 16) 
* 17) 
-- Jytdog (talk) 20:33, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: what is new, and what is kept, and what was removed

message: ; reused refs
* A) is fine
* B) is meh; ACS took down a lot of their stuff on alt med and published it in a book instead. We should be citing the book.  Also this 10 year old ref was (and is in the new version) being used to make statments about today, which is not OK.  
* C) is not MEDRS and should be removed
* D) is not MEDRS and is spam and should be removed
* E) is not MEDRS and is spam and should be removed
* F) is too old per MEDRS and should be removed.  also is woo
* G) is too old and is by an author affiliated with an institution pushing woo. Might be useful for history. 
* H) is 17 years old and should be removed
* I) is like G) but a bit better in terms of the journal and author but older.  so good for history, not medicine.
* J) is fine
; new refs
* 1) and 2) are skeptic-y and OK per PARITY.  We usually go with Gorski or Novella but this is OK.
* 3) through 6) are relatively recent (not so recent) reviews in OK journals. OK
* 7) is a clinical trial + review, needs to be used with care
* 8) 18 years old and in another language. Not good.
* 9) good source but again 17 years old...
* 10) through 12) are OK
* 13) and 14) and 15) and 16) good but is 14 years old and 19 (!) years old and 13 years old  and 10 years old respectively.
* 16) is a predatory journal and should not be used at all.
-- Jytdog (talk) 21:07, 16 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: These are some of the topics that still need to be added to the page if anyone is keen to help out
<S>1.  History of EMT devices
:https://www.archives-pmr.org/article/S0003-9993(01)22503-9/fulltext
:https://web.archive.org/web/20080204225953/http://www.cancer.org/docroot/ETO/content/ETO_5_3X_Electromagnetic_Therapy.asp

<S>6.  Be good to have another major reference source other than the American Cancer Council 2011 Archive page
:https://sciencebasedmedicine.org/pulsed-electromagnetic-field-snake-oil/</S>
<S>7.  Updated information on EMT devices on the market in 2018 as the devices listed were still available in 2011
:Email sent to Australian Cancer Council requesting information on current alternative therapies using EMT 01:03, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: https://www.csicop.org/si/show/power_lines_and_cancer_distant_healing_and_health_care_magnetism_misreprese</S>
Nestek (talk) 01:07, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

text: I've proposed that we merge this into Radionics (see discussion on its talk page).  The second and third bullets are not things we do. Sure the template can go here.  Pictures are always great.  The ACS reference is the book; the archived page is just for convenience, but yes more high quality sources are welcome.  There are generally few high quality sources for quackery like this.  Science-Based Medicine often has things, and indeed here is one.  There may be others at SBM. Jytdog (talk) 01:16, 19 May 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  A merger of these 2 pages would make sense as Radionics is really focused on a sub section of the electromagnetic spectrum - radio waves where as Electromagnetic therapy covers the entire spectrum - be interesting watch I have not been involved in a merger before Nestek (talk) 01:23, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

text:  Completed adding the template and have removed points 2&3 from the list. Managed to find only 1 suitable photo Nestek (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Additional Information Required on the Page