Tremendous advancements have been made in our understanding of biological phenomena over the past few decades. A few pioneers like Bruce Pomeranz and Robert Becker have persevered and brought new insights into the fundamental bioelectric activities which underlie the physiology of acupuncture. Unfortunately, it seems that many of us in practice are lagging behind in our general understanding of these principles. This becomes especially apparent in our application of electroacupuncture. Many of us were simply taught to connect the electrical device to several needles, turn on the machine until the patient felt it strongly, and that was it. Ostensibly, this was to enhance our treatment. But further study reveals electroacupuncture has many more components which can dramatically affect our therapeutic outcomes. The clearer we are about these fundamentals, the better our treatment outcomes.
Most people assume electrical medicine is something of recent origin. However, as with acupuncture, its roots are buried in antiquity. Subtle electrical therapy probably began with the application of lodestones to acupuncture points. They were made from magnetite, a naturally magnetic material, and were believed to have a potent life force since they moved by themselves. But there is an interesting history to stronger attempts at electrotherapy.
In the first century AD, Scribonius Largus, (a physician in Nero's army) treated gout and headaches by applying a type of electric eel. Although he had some successes, many patients didn't survive the treatment. Gennai Hiraga of Envo (Japan) reportedly used Electro-stimulation with acupuncture as far back as 1764. In 1757, Ben Franklin used an electrical device to treat frozen shoulder and post-CVA paralysis. He referred to it as being "electricised". His results were good, but short term, lasting only a few days. Luigi Galvani, in 1791, discovered that electrical impulses caused muscle to contract. This earmarked the beginning of our understanding of the electrical nature of muscle. By 1800, Carlo Matteucci had discovered that injured tissue generates an electrical current. By 1812, an English physician, John Birch, was using electric shocks to treat non-union tibial fractures. About the same time (1816), a French physician, Louis Berlioz, was applying DC current to acupuncture needles. In 1825 another French physician, Chevalier Sarlandiere, was treating gout and rheumatism with acupuncture enhanced by electrical currents. This was generally done by connecting the needles to Leyden jars, glass jars covered in tin which acted as condensers for electrical current.
In the United States during the 1800s, Doctor Hall, (in Pennsylvania) used DC current through acupuncture needles for treating non-union fractures. And in 1860, Arthur Garret, a Boston physician, published an entire textbook on electrotherapy. He also applied DC current to acupuncture needles to treat non-unions. In the text he stated that in the few times he'd used it, this method had never failed. In 1875, Dr. L.H. Cohen used electro-acupuncture as anesthesia for removal of a glandular tumor. There are other examples as well. The point is that the integration of electricity and acupuncture occurred far earlier than most of us realize.
Since the 1950s, and even before, science and medicine employed a paradigm based upon the chemical, mechanistic concept of life. That is, all biological activity was essentially viewed as an array of chemical reactions which influenced structure and could ultimately be measured and quantified. Unfortunately, these paradigm was supported by an attitude which still exists, that if we can't see it or measure it, it must not exist. We now know this perspective has limitations. In fact some physicians and others who relegate acupuncture to placebo or hocus-pocus are sorely underinformed.
More recently, science has begun to recognize that the chemistry of life is based upon the underlying forces of electricity and magnetism. These forces influence the chemical activity, which leads to functional and structural changes. Therefore, we have two antithetical viewpoints on biological activity, 'structure determines function' and 'function determines structure'. Both paradigms have value. A similar paradox occurs in the world of physics, represented by the views of Quantum physics us. Newtonian physics. Quantum physics has discovered that the components of the atom don't necessarily follow the same physical laws that the atom as a whole seems to follow. Again, both views seem opposing, yet each has its proper application. By understanding these underlying bioelectrical dynamics more clearly, we can develop therapies which have a closer approximation to what the body naturally does. Additionally, we may come to recognize new diseases which are linked to chronic or excessive exposure to the multitude of electromagnetic fields surrounding us.