The research paper I quoted didn't say "dry muscle fibers under microscope". Stop making stuff up. The paper also said that at 10 hertz muscle had an average of 38,000,000 ohms!!! More proof of my point. 38meg would permit only an incredibly small amount of current to pass thru it. The current would have no option but to take the "highway" which is the bloodstream.
Concerning Becks "measurement" of electric current flow in the bloodstream, he obviously made a mistake. It wasn't the first he made. Other mistakes: he recommended using salted water to make Colloidal Silver (which we now know makes toxic compounds), he said that magnetic pulsing caused electroporation, he blamed electroporation for the transfection that 4Hz blood electrification caused (although it takes thousands of volts per cm to electroporate), he said that blood electrification could cure AIDS, etc. If you ever talked to him you'd know he was a very stubborn bull-headed individual and it was hard to tell him anything. Thank God he used his strong will to bring this biotechnology to the publics attention but now is a time of refinement of what he started.
I can think of two possible erroneous situations when trying to measure current flow in the blood:
1. Beck inserted the electrodes into the artery 6" apart and then set the multimeter on "AC current". That would set the internal resistance of the meter in parallel with the 6" of blood which would give a lower reading than what is really flowing in the blood because it ignores what is still flowing thru the blood in that 6" stretch and only measures what amount diverts into the meter. Seeing too low a measurement (less than 100uA) then he would of turned up the juice on his blood purifier till he got a 100uA reading. Then measuring the device output he may of read around 3mA and then proceeded to tell everyone that it was the correct level to apply.
2. Normally to directly measure current flow you have to interrupt the circuit with a current meter. But Beck couldn't interrupt the blood flow and so he could of relied on resistance and voltage readings. Using the equation V=IxR (voltage equals current times resistance) he could of tried to deduce the amount of current flowing in the blood. First he would have used an ohmmeter to measure the resistance of the blood. Let's say he measured 1000 ohms. Then he would of applied a blood electrifier to the subject and measured the AC voltage between the two electrodes. Let's say he measured .1 volts. Using the equation V=IxR (I=V/R) he would of divided .1 by 1000 to get .1mA. Then he would of used a current meter between one of the electrodes and the output wire to measure the total current leaving the unit. Let's say he measured 3mA. So then he would of said that 3mA was essential to receive .1mA of current in the blood. But here's what the catch is: Resistance of living tissue and blood is different with AC (alternating current) than with DC (direct current such as what an ohmmeter puts out to measure resistance)[ref 1]. Beck had to of used DC resistance when measuring but then used a 4Hz blood electrifier to measure the AC voltage drop between 6 inches of blood. To of correctly figure the amount of blood current based on blood voltage he would of had to know the AC resistance of the blood at 4Hz, which he didn't because ohmmeters output DC. AC resistance is lower for blood than DC resistance. If bloods 4Hz AC resistance was 37 ohms (unknown to Beck) then the equation V/R=I would of yielded .1/37=2.7mA (.0027A) which would of meant that 90% of the applied current went into the arteries blood and that only .138mA of current was really needed to put the same amount of current density into a brachial artery (with 16mm cross sectional area) that lab tests proved effective against HIV.
[Table 2 shows the difference in impedance (AC resistance) between frequencies 10 hertz and 1000 hertz. Measurements at the forearm showed 550K at 10 Hz and 29K at 1000 Hz. Every body part they tested showed more resistance at the lower frequency.]