No announcement yet.

The joke of electrotherapy

  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    HI to everyone,

    I thought I would write and set a few things straight. I do not know where this member obtained his information. The basic research began in the 1970's and has been ongoing around the world. This technology is used by Therapeutic Alliances and Electrologic of America in the commercial FES bikes. The FDA only allows seven claims to be made by manufactures of electrical stimulators because these claims have been proven. One of the claims is reversal of muscle disuse atrophy. If you search Medline, the primary search engine for medical papers, you will see 42 papers published on reversal of muscle atrophy with electrical stimulation using needle biopsies as proof. A like number of papers have been written using cat scans showing the cross sectional muscle area increase with the use of FES.

    With the early research on the FES bike development, Dr. Barth Green, a top neurologist who started the Miami Project and its cure program, studied with us the effects of FES on muscles and proved its benefits using biopsies and cat scans in 1983. He worked in conjunction with my brother Jerrold at Wright State University and Dr. Ragnarsson at NYU. Dr. Green, Jerrold and I were part of the startup team of Therapeutic Technologies. The early basic research was the foundation for the develop of the REGYS and the ERGYS bikes at TTI. I was VP of Engineering and R&D at Therapeutic Technologies, before stating my current company Electrologic. Over the years, these technologies were greatly improved in the StimMaster's three generations of development.

    To help with the information on muscle fibers, in layman's terms, there are two types of muscle fibers. One type is used for quick response and heavy muscle force. The other type is used for long periods of continuous work. FES does train and increase both types. The FES bike, trains the endurance fibers most of all. Let us not forget, disuse atrophy is not the most important consideration for the use of the FES bike. Its best advantage is cardiovascular conditioning which is only obtained by using your own muscles for peddling the bike through the use of FES. This action increases circulation, decreases skin breakdown, and decreases spasms.

    Steven H. Petrofsky


      Originally posted by ScottS:

      a different way to look at it...

      instead of focusing on his shots at fes, why not actually thinking that his proposed therapy might work? basically, b/c he came out shooting at Dr Young, fes, Petrofsky, etc, everyone doesn't like DQ so they focus on shooting him down. while his manner of promoting his therapy is controversial, the therapy may be right on. why not try it? if fes therapy had been promoted in the same manner, where would all you die-hard fes users be today?

      this electrochemistry theory/therapy could possibly be the "next big thing." maybe it will get better results than fes...maybe it won't. how will you know w/o trying it? i know the guy he wrote about, Clayton Dixon, he was a bit overweight and out of shape when we were in rehab. now he's fit b/c of DQ's device. he is an incomplete injury and that may be why he's out of the chair now, but i guarantee the therapy helped a lot, if not the reason he's out now. he only used the device a few months and in those months he had huge results!

      the problem here isn't electrochemistry vs fes. the problem is that nobody is reasonable b/c they are mad about the posts. i'm sure fes had humble beginnings, but people tried it & liked it, and those people support it now. don't confuse backing up a therapy you like w/ contempt for an alternative therapy. when electrochemistry has been tried by enough people it will build the necessary foundation and hopefully take off like fes. i know i'll be trying it as soon as i can get ahold of a machine. i'll have to take caution not to damage my skin, but fes, tens, & estim have the same precautions.

      SEE THROUGH THE CONTEMPT!!! this post went as far as tracking the guy down, and also threatened a lawsuit...geez! that was all just as unnecessary as the attacks on Dr Young. gimme a break, just consider the therapy...
      1. When you want to promote a therapy it is unnecessary to attack others.

      2. You certainly don't attack the Dr.'s who are recommending the therapy out of goodfaith as being "fraudulent."

      3. Nobody here threatened a lawsuit. They warned him of the legal grounds upon those he was charging with fraud had a basis for a complaint. Myself, Curtis, et al. have no standing to bring a claim.

      4. See my posts below. I told him several times to stop the negative campaigning against FES and just prove up his theory. One incomplete injury with success does not a therapy make. I gave him 3 specific steps to do this. 1. State his name and his credentials. 2. Provide peer reviewed documentation of the therapies effectiveness. 3. Provide a published article in a respected journal outlining his research.

      He stated in 1999 that this therapy was about to be distributed. He states the same thing five years later. He has actively sought patients to try his therapy. WITH NO FDA approval. In his own words the FDA is a baseline for safety.

      In short, I have no problem with new and better therapies. The more the merrier. But not at the expense of our safety or the safety of others.

      Prove up the product. Get it on the market. And compete with Petrofsky. If he's right he will be able to attract plenty of investors in his technology and Petrofsky will be out of business in no time.

      Heck, I've got people who would talk with him. But he needs to come to the table with a lot more than what he's shown before I would even consider making those introductions. And any potential serious investor certainly would not want him posturing himself like this on a public forum.

      In short, he needs to stop the squawking and go to work.

      Enough said.

      What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator
      What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator


        One more point:

        Note that in serious discussions of cure and therapies, the frontrunners have posted under their own names. If there is a screen name, the most credible to me do not hide out in the bushes. When asked who he was, DQ did not matter. I say it does. He is marketing most certainly does matter. If you want to try the machine, try it..maybe that is wise for you to do. I would hope the operation manual is complete and in print before you turn on the switch. It was not wrong for the members to search for his identity, it was responsible. They care, and it mattered to them. Like Lar said, market the thing...properly and compete. I was never angry...I questioned but was not angry. DQ had no problem giving it out...when one does that, he or she must be ready to get it back in equal measure.


        If I can see it, then I can do it. If I believe it, there's nothing to it.


          Thank you , Steve Petrofsky, for finally speaking up. The chorus of true believers in FES was getting deafening, which in itself is not bad, but the incoherence was a little off-putting. Thank you for telling me that there are 42 papers out there that conflict with the research done by Greve JM, Muszkat R, Schmidt B, Chiovatto J, Barros Filho TE and Batisttella LR (1993). Functional electrical stimulation (FES): muscle histochemical analysis. Paraplegia. 31: 764-70. Department of Rehabilitation, Clinics Hospital, School of Medicine, University of Sao Paulo, Brazil. Could you please cite me to them. I have searched PubMed for 'functional electrical stimulation' and 'muscle atrophy,' and gone 20 pages deep in each case, as I have regularly over the years. I found nothing that conflicts with the findings of the Brazilians, and would greatly appreciate some guidance here. I did find two thing which were curious, one of them by a relative of yours perhaps:

          1: J Spinal Cord Med. 2003 Winter;26(4):384-9. Links

          Physiologic responses to electrically assisted and frame-supported standing in persons with paraplegia.

          Jacobs PL, Johnson B, Mahoney ET.

          Department of Neurologic Surgery, University of Miami School of Medicine, Miami, Florida 33136, USA.

          BACKGROUND: Systems of functional electrical stimulation (FES) have been demonstrated to enable some persons with paraplegia to stand and ambulate limited distances. However, the energy costs and acute physiologic responses associated with FES standing activities have not been well investigated

          This study, as you see, was done in 2003, and published in the winter of that year. Not so long ago. 'Not well investigated'...curious. I was lead to believe the work was done. I know that your and your machine are more soundly based in science. Just FDA approval and adoption by the VA assure this, or so the chorus chanted. But let's consider another study:

          Neuromuscular Rehabilitation by Treadmill Running or Electrical Stimulation after Peripheral Nerve Injury and Repair.

          Marqueste T, Alliez JR, Alluin O, Jammes Y, Decherchi P.

          UPRES EA 3285, Faculty of Sciences and Sport, Marseille, Bouches-du-Rhone, France; UPRES EA 2201, Faculty of Medicine Nord, Marseille, Bouches-du-Rhone, France.

          Numerous studies were devoted to the regeneration of the motor pathway toward a denervated muscle after nerve injury. However, the regeneration of sensory muscle endings after repair by self-anastomosis was few studied. In previous electrophysiological studies, we showed that the functional characteristics of tibialis anterior muscle afferents are differentially affected after injury and repair of the peroneal nerve with and without chronically electrostimulation. The present study focuses on the axonal regeneration of mechano- (fibers I and II) and metabosensitive (fibers III and IV) muscle afferents by evaluating the recovery of their response to different test agents after nerve injury, repair by self-anastomosis, during 10 weeks of treadmill running (LSR group). Data were compared to control animals (C), animals with nerve lesion and suture (LS), and animals with lesion, suture and chronic muscle rehabilitation by electrostimulation (LSE) with a biphasic current modulated in pulse duration and frequency, eliciting a pattern mimicking the activity delivered by the nerve to the muscle. Compared to the C group, results indicated that, 1) muscle weight was smaller in LS and LSR groups, 2) the fatigue index was greater in LS group and smaller in LSE group, 3) metabosensibility remained altered in the LS and LSE groups, and 4) mechanosensitivity presented a large increase of the activation pattern in the LS and LSE groups. Our data indicated that chronic muscle electrostimulation partially favors the recovery of muscle properties (i.e. muscle weight and twitch response were close to the controls) and that rehabilitation by treadmill running also efficiently induced a better functional muscle afferent recovery (i.e. the discharge pattern was similar to the controls).

          Afferent, as you know, does not mean efferent, that is, functional motor skill, but feeling. Nothing here to support the motor functioning thing. It's curious though. Here the authors claim that a BIPHASIC current mimics THE ACTIVITY DEVLIVERED BY THE NERVE TO THE MUSCLE. I'll talk about physics shortly. But in the meantime here it is:

          The effect of previous weight training and concurrent weight training on endurance for functional electrical stimulation cycle ergometry.

          Petrofsky JS, Laymon M.

          Department of Physical Therapy, Loma Linda University, CA 92350, Loma Linda, USA,

          Forty-five paraplegic subjects participated in three series of experiments to examine the interrelationships between previous weight training, concurrent weight training and muscle strength and endurance during cycle ergometry elicited by functional electrical stimulation (FES). When subjects only underwent isokinetic weight training (series 1) three times per week on the quadriceps, hamstring and gluteus maximus groups for 12 weeks, strength increased linearly with time for all three muscle groups from an initial average of 17 N to 269 N at the end of training, a 15-fold increase. In the second series of experiments, different groups of subjects either underwent no strength training prior to cycle ergometry or underwent strength training of these same three muscle groups for 2 weeks, four weeks, or 6 weeks prior to cycle ergometry. Any strength training was effective in increasing endurance for cycle ergometry. However, the rate of increase in endurance during cycle ergometry with no prior strength training was only 5 min per week, whereas the rate of increase in cycle endurance during ergometry was 14.6, 25.0, and 33.3 min per week increase in endurance after strength training for 2.4 and 6 weeks, respectively. When weight training was accomplished during FES cycle ergometry (concurrently) in a third series of experiments, there was an additional increase in endurance during cycling if strength training was concurrently accomplished. With no weight training, endurance increased 23 min per week, whereas with concurrent weight training at three times per week, endurance increased during cycling by 41.6 min per week. The results of these experiments seem to
          I don't know if this the Jerold Petrofsky who originally pioneered the FES thing, or what relation he is to you, but look at that conclusion: "The results of these experiments seem to show a clear advantage of weight training concurrently and before FES cycle ergometry. Results are given as mean (SD)." This seems to support the idea that more is gained from weight training effort than from FES. Am I wrong here? Did I read this properly, did your namesake find that FES is superfluous? Please help me here. Direct me to one, just one, of the 42 papers that are out there that say that biopsies show that FES increases the cross-sectional area of the type II fiber. I have been looking for it for years.
          Now let's get to physics. As an engineer you will understand this, I'm sure, though the transition to physiology might be challenging. You know, of course, that in the graph of a sinusoidal wave showing the voltage change over time of an alternating current, the area between the curve and the x axis is the measure of electrical charge passed. This means that for a biphasic current, like that cited above in the work done by Marqueste et al. which, it is claimed, simulates nervous functioning, the amount of electrical charge passed is zero, unless that biphasic wave is asymmetrical. But nothing was said about this in the article, so I will assume it is symmetrically biphasic. Again, that means no current or charge was passed. This rules out electrochemistry. How, then does a biphasic current simulate nervous functioning, which is not known to work by AC? More particularly, how does FES work? What does your wonderful machine do? In causing contractions without passing electrical charge (indeed, this is outlawed by the FDA no less, and your machine has FDA approval), how does the electrical current act upon muscle, and is this an adequate simulation of the way the nerve does it? We both know that voltage transmission alone can't cause biochemical changes like those necessary for the synthesis of proteins. So how does voltage transmission strengthen muscle, that is, increase cross-sectional area of the type II fiber, without using chemistry, which is possible only with mon-ophasic current? I'm just dying to know. Please, please, let me in on the secret. You see, because, in principle, before even seeing the Greve research which says FES has no affect on the type II fiber, physics and chemistry alone suggest that this is what should be found - that FES does not have any influence on muscle atrophy. Please, let me in on the secret. I won't tell anyone. Or else cite me to the research that says it does. Oh please!!


            Dr. Petrofsky, welcome, again, to CC and thank you for participating.

            Larwatson, good suggestions.

            ScottS, I mentioned in another post that perhaps a better way to market this product would have been as an alternative to FES but to attempt to promote a product by discrediting the validity of the science behind another is certain to raise anyones ire, especialy those who have achieved success with it, but I suspect this was DQ's intention. How better to bring attention to yourself. Make your product available, allow users to decide which is preferable based on the results it produces, and if it works as suggested, it will stand on its own merits. Rehab specialists will flock to it in no time and FES based technology will become obsolete. Lars is right, no investor worth his salt would back a product that's promoted in this manner. DQ stated that FES proponents have claimed that its use alone could return motor control to the paralytic and get people out of their chairs when the fact is that those claims were never made. He's failed to understand exactly what FES has been shown to do. I hope his machine does work as he suggests, perhaps finalizing the technology will take less time than his previous attempts seem to indicate. The quicker he subjects his machine to the same stringent criteria FES has been subjected to, completes the necessary trials and receives FDA approval, the better.

            [This message was edited by seneca on 03-18-04 at 10:20 PM.]


              "Its best advantage is cardiovascular conditioning which is only obtained by using your own muscles for peddling the bike through the use of FES. This action increases circulation, decreases skin breakdown, and decreases spasms".I agree with this 100%, and nicely put. Mr. Petrofsky, I have been following you and your brothers achievements over the years and would like to thank you for your efforts. As I believe every journey begins with a single step.


                Seneca, I am in the very process of introducing this approach to muscle and organ restoration. It is costing me easily tens of thousands of dollors to come up with the equipment so that those interested can try it. I am not introducing this as an alternative to FES, but a replacement of it. Despite what you and Steve Petrofsky say about the science behind FES and how it is so throughly researched, I cannot find any of it on PubMed, and even that done by J. Petrofsky, Steve's brother, apparently, and which I included in my last post, says that FES is largely ineffectual. So far Steve hasn't come up with any science that says FES does anything to reverse atrophy, that contradicts what the Brazilians say. In addition we have this quote from Chasb, and it explains why I say that FES does not do what is claimed: "using your own muscles for peddling the bike through the use of FES." You are not powering your own muscles, the power source is external - let's look again at the quote from Chasb, more closely: "...using your own muscles....through the use of FES". The power source is external, not your own body; the power source is a biphasic current (AC) which is not how the body works; you are not then using your own muscles except to hold on to the machine; all muscle contraction is caused by an external power source, one that cannot trigger growth of the type II fiber; you are not 'using' your muscles, instead you are causing them to contract by voltage transmission delivered to the muscle surface, not electrical charge to the neuromuscular junction the way the body does it. My statement still stands, and neither Steve Petrofsky nor Wise Young has offered any science which contradicts the conclusion of the Brazilians, that FES has no effect on type II fiber cross-sectional area. I'm waiting for that science. I have searched the journals for it for years, and never found a thing.


                  Is there anyway FES and your theory can be integrated?

                  Perhaps an upgraded FES?
                  It seems with the innovative minds of you
                  and Mr. Petrofsky..the skies the limit.

                  Life isn't about getting thru the storm but learning to dance in the rain.


                    DQ,Is there anyway FES and your theory can be integrated?Perhaps an upgraded FES?It seems with the innovative minds of youand Mr. Petrofsky..the skies the limit.

                    Lindox, I would like nothing more than to tap into the resources and concerns of the Petrofskys with regard to the restoration of muscle and great amelioration of the condition of the handicapped. They have the money for the clinical tests. I could not interest NASA in a submitted research proposal. They rejected all forms of electrical stimulation to build muscle as tried and unproven, and in a letter to me I was told that NASA would stay with the traditional resistance exercises. Testing the hypothesis of the electrochemical nature of nervous system trophism and the application of this account to the building of muscle, in particular, the type II muscle fiber, could be quickly tested by NASA. All that would have to be done is have someone go into space for one month doing whatever, but not exercising except with electrochemistry. Upon return to earth if this person could stand up and walk from the shuttle, my point would be proven. Another way this could be tested is have a number of people spend two months in bed, with some exercising with electrochemistry, some not, some doing isometrics, and some just exercising one half of their bodies with electrochemistry. Biopsies of the muscle would measure the diameter of the type II fiber both before and after the two months. A third way would be to routinely treat all new spinal and cerebral injuries and stroke victims while they were hospitalized, and, upon release, compare the percentage that walked out with those that walked out in previous years. This latter study would be very time consuming and expensive. The first one is unlikely because NASA is so bureaucratic that even though debilitation of flight crews from disuse is, as NASA admits, the biggest obstacle to manned exploration in the solar system. The second way of testing it is the way to go.
                    A key problem with getting the Petrofskys to cooperate is that the implications of seeing nervous system trophism as electrochemical involve the immediate undermining of the claims to efficacy of FES. What is involved here is the full disclosure of the electrical signal used by FES to achieve muscle contraction, and an examination as to whether this comes close at all to how the body does it. In an earlier post on this string to Steven Petrofsky I discussed the area between the curve of a biphasic current plotted with X as time and Y as voltage. This area is current flow, that is, amperes. With a biphasic current, like that used for FES and virtually all electrical stimulation approved by the FDA, that area averages out to zero, with the area above the X axis cancelled out by the area beneath the X axis. This is the charge neutrality that FES seeks to achieve, and it rules out electrochemistry. Another problem is that to use electrochemistry like the body does, one must go to each of over 1000 neuromuscular junctions and ganglia on the body. This is not then something that a person straps into and turns on. To exercise this way one has to be very active and knowledgeable of one's own anatomy, moving the anode every two seconds and the cathode every 5 minutes to avoid blistering and pitting respectively, or at least the deep redness that can be found at either pole when the current is allowed to run too long in one spot. This takes training and dedication to learn. I will have all the training videos on the web page when the machines and anodes are manufactured, and this will take perhaps two more months. What I need is people who are willing to try this, handicapped or not. The non-handicapped will show results far more quickly since their muscles are still usable; similarly with the recently injured. But there will be no biopsies involved with this grass roots approach to the investigation, so, just as with FES, all endorsements will be based upon anecdote. In the court of science anecdote carries no weight even though it may result in increased sales of equipment. What the biopsies would do is provide the scientific evidence for justification for the use of electrochemistry in the treatment of disuse atrophy, but in so doing they would also provide refutation of the claims of FES to affect muscle atrophy, and this is something the Petrofsky's could not get behind. They have a financial stake and reputation, the preservation of which would be threatened by this very investigation.
                    In any case, this evening, I am told by the man I hired to work with me on this, the initial electrochemical tutorial will be hoisted to the web page at This tutorial will present the role of electrochemistry in the origins of life, and in the extremely important cellular capture of energy through what is called 'chemotrophism'. I hope it will serve as justification to you and others, even if not the Petrofskys or any paralysis researchers, for trying this approach to the restoration of muscle mass and the return of motor functioning amongst those with incomplete injuries [a considerable fraction of all spinal injured and those paralyzed from stroke]. I am hoping that those interested in physical fitness, even if not themselves disabled, also pick up on this. Some people who have posted to this thread have claimed to use FES for twenty years. Because the longer from the day of injury the longer it will take to restore muscle, there are many chronic paralytics who will have to spend that amount of time, and longer even, before the muscles are usable. But the point is that the muscles will become usable if the problem is merely disuse atrophy from years of paralysis after an incomplete injury. In my case, I have been paralyzed going on 32 years from the T-3,4 level, after twenty-four years of researching, studying, and developing this approach, I have recovered control of urination and use of muscles to the waist, pleasurable feedback from genital stimulation, interoception that allows me to feel when I need to defecate and to expel feces without having to use digital stimulation, and the beginnings of movement of the femurs of both legs. And it doesn't stop here. I have feeling in my feet now, and expect motor control to return far more over the next four years.


                      wow, was my post even read, or what? in no way did i support DQ's attacks on anything or anyone. i did not support the fact that he withheld his identity, nor did i support his marketing strategy.

                      this was posted under the unwitting charlatanry topic:
                      "Anyhow Don, I am going to notify Mr. Steve Petrofsky of Electrologic of your posts here and if there is anyway to track you down you sure as heck better hope that you dont end up having a lawsuit filed against you."

                      and this, in response to my last post:
                      "3. Nobody here threatened a lawsuit. They warned him of the legal grounds upon those he was charging with fraud had a basis for a complaint..."

                      it may not technically be a threat, but it's close enough. let me try again to make my point. it may not apply to everyone who took part in this forum, but many were upset by his attacks and therefore unwilling to consider that the therapy may work. electrochemistry may very well be the next big thing but it was torn apart b/c of how it was marketed. i didn't like the way it was marketed either and don't think it will successfully take off this way, but i'm interested in seeing how well it works. i am supporting the theory only. i hope to see it do well and ultimately help a lot of people. if you read the last essay in the Academic's Corner of his website, titled "Biological Cellular Energy Capture," you'll see that it makes a lot of sense. i know someone who uses it safely everyday, so safety is not a concern of mine, as long as i use it as it's intended.

                      it won't hurt me, it'll probably help me, so i'm going to try it. i'm just suggesting people consider the same thing. it's the same logic i used in order to decide to try fes.

                      "Today I will do what others won't, so that tomorrow I can do what others can't."
                      "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
                      ...Mark Twain

                      I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
                      ...Winston Churchill

                      A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
                      ...George Bernard Shaw


                        The electrochemical tutorial on the web page at is now up. It explains in detail the role of electrochemistry in the origin and evolution of life, and provides the justification for the use of electrochemistry to build muscle and restore organ functioning. It should be noted that any form of electrical stimulation that does not use electrochemistry, that is, that relys upon what is called a biphasic current, does not come close to simulating the working of the nervous system, and cannot trigger any constructive changes in the body because it is not capable of affecting biochemistry. The immediate implication is that all forms of electrotherapy currently on the market, whether FES, EMS, PEMS, E-Stim, or whatever, has no affect on the body's chemistry and, having no affect, is incapable of building or rebuilding any part of the body. All forms of electrotherapy using biphasic current, whether AC or DC, are based on pseudo-science and wishful thinking as old as the 'animal electricity' of Luigi Galvani which dates to the late 18th century. If your equipment has been approved by the FDA, it doesn't work. FDA regulations for powered stimulators prohibit the passing of electrical charge,and this makes electochemistry impossible.


                          Good writing. Addresses absolutely none of the 3 requirements I asked for, but must have taken awhile to put together.

                          Lets see if I can make this easier for you.

                          1. Personal credentials (a resume would be suffice)
                          2. Data (from your own trial and the trials of otherswhom this theory has presumably been tested on)
                          3. Peer review of data (an objective third party looksee)

                          I'll even settle for just the first two for starters.

                          Scott you've stated that you know of one person who this therapy helped. Where's the clinical data for that person? Where's any data at all?

                          This guy has been stating since 1999 that he's ready to get stated with distribution. Yet, no FDA approval?

                          From his own words he's stated that if FES is FDA approved that all it means is that its safe. In fact if its FDA approved he states clearly that it won't work.

                          I'm not stating his therapy is out and out bunk, but if he's not willing to fulfill the above criteria and an assurance of safety from the FDA (hmmmm a resume and some data) then your following statement:

                          "it won't hurt me, it'll probably help me, so i'm going to try it. i'm just suggesting people consider the same thing. it's the same logic i used in order to decide to try fes."

                          is complete BS. You're asking people to consider something that has absolutely no basis for weighing the benefits and risks. No FDA approval? Why, because in order for it to work it won't pass FDA safety standards?

                          I'll believe it when I see it. I wish you luck.

                          What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator
                          What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator


                            larwatso, you just don't get it, & at this point i'm sure you're not going to. thoroughly reading the previous posts will answer your questions/concerns, and keep you from putting words in my mouth that are based on your assumptions, and misleading others as to what my intentions are (my intentions are only for people to give the therapy an unbiased consideration...nothing more). i'm through trying to explain & re-explain myself.

                            by the way, please don't wish me luck after saying my statement is complete BS. i'd rather not be patronized w/ insincerity.

                            "Today I will do what others won't, so that tomorrow I can do what others can't."
                            "If you don't read the newspaper you are uninformed, if you do read the newspaper you are misinformed."
                            ...Mark Twain

                            I contend that for a nation to try to tax itself into prosperity is like a man standing in a bucket and trying to lift himself up by the handle.
                            ...Winston Churchill

                            A government which robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul.
                            ...George Bernard Shaw


                              i'm through trying to explain & re-explain myself.

                              by the way, please don't wish me luck after saying my statement is complete BS. i'd rather not be patronized w/ insincerity.

                              Scott. The first part of my post was directed at Greg. He's yet to address the three criteria I or anyone considering investing their money (or bodies) into should require.

                              And I fully get your intentions. You think folks should give the therapy a shot. I'm telling them not to based upon the lack of information. In my mind they would be unnecessarily putting their health at risk.

                              We can agree to disagree. If you can help Greg prove up his theory than I sincerely wish you good luck.

                              Until he proves up his theory I will remain skeptical.

                              Points to ponder if you are considering Greg's therapy and assuming that there is no FDA approval:

                              1. Interview as many folks as possible who have tried the therapy.

                              2. Ask to see before and after results. The more data the better.

                              3. Agree to buy nothing without a warranty, and see if there is a money back guarantee.

                              4. Ask if he has product liability insurance and at what amount is it capped?

                              5. Of the people interviewed who have tried the therapy, how many are your type of injury (ie quad, para, incomplete, complete, etc.)?

                              These are just for starters.

                              What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator
                              What we do in life echoes in eternity. Maximus - Gladiator


                                Donkey Hotee,
                                Forgive my spelling. My text prediction software sometimes puts the wrong words for names. I have used FES for years and it has help me tree men does lee. I hope to use your biochemistry treatment one day. Thank you.