The Rejuvenator’s directions booklet did not target one disease but supplied electrode-and-power instructions for a wide range of named complaints, the practical expression of the underlying theory that a single electrical imbalance underlies illness in general. James F. Stark’s 2014 history records that this near-universal scope, advertised directly to lay consumers through testimonials, was exactly what drew the organized profession’s objection: the British Medical Association refused Overbeck advertising space in the British Medical Journal in 1928 after complaints, commissioned an electrical engineer to examine the device, and contacted practitioners whose endorsements appeared in his publicity, some of whom said they had been quoted without their knowledge or consent; Australian authorities in 1934 treated the product as not a reliable method of treatment. Classified testimonial and refuted: the broad cure claim rested only on solicited anecdote and is inconsistent with the device’s actual milliampere-scale output.