Talk:BDORT/Mediation/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Welcome

As I stated before, my name is Andy and I represent the Mediation Cabal. I am here as an unbiased party to help you reach consensus about the best possible content for this article. All I know about this subject of the article is what I have read in the article and its related pages. A couple things to agree to right off the bat:

What are the requirements for this article?

• Neutral point of view - review WP:NPOV
• Verifiable - review WP:V

Anything that does not fit BOTH of those requirements does not belong here. These are not my requirements - they are Wikipedia policies.

What is appropriate conduct for this mediation?

• Assume good faith - review WP:AGF
• Remain civil - review WP:CIVIL

Instructions

Sign below with a bullet and your signature that you agree to what I have written above. I consider these to be essential for the success of mediation; everything else can and will be negotiated. Do not post anything else yet! I will proceed when I have everyone's agreement.

• --Aguerriero (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Arcsincostan 22:27, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Addhoc 22:28, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Crum375 22:54, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
• Agreed. Richardmalter 01:41, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Approach

All right! Now that everyone is aboard, we can set about agreeing to an approach toward resolving conflicts on this page. From reading the page, its history, and its talk page, it is clear that most or all of it has come into contention at some point. Bearing that in mind, I propose the following approach:

I will start a heading here for each section of the article, beginning with the lead paragraph. The heading will contain a "sandbox" version of the section that you can edit without disrupting the main article. The heading will also contain discussion of the neutrality and verifiability of the passage. I expect that the reliability of each citation will be critically analyzed if it is called into question.

Sound good?

If everyone agrees, we can proceed. If you don't agree, please propose and alternate approach for everyone to consider. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds very sensible. Addhoc 15:34, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Couple of thoughts: The lead is, of course, in a way a summary – dependent on the overall entry and its cites. Might it be better to consider first what are the reliable cites, or, at the least the principal ones? On the other hand, if we turn immediately to the lead para, I would think we'll soon find ourselves in consideration of the cites. I'm fine with either approach. Arcsincostan 17:24, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Arcsincostan. I think our main thrust should be identifying acceptable sources. That is also the core of the dispute with the Omura proponents, such as Richard Malter. We can always find proper wording once we agree (or at least reach a consensus) on the acceptable sources. Personally, I think that for the basic Omura CV we can use his Web pages (and I think the summary in the current lead is a reasonable summary). For BDORT, which is Omura's claim to fame and the core of the article, I currently only see a single source for acceptable reliable scientific evaluation, which is the NZ Tribunal report. I think delving into wording issues before we agree on the basic WP-acceptable facts and sources will push the cart before the horse. Crum375 23:56, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good to me - we will just wait for Richardmalter's agreement. So the current proposal is to consider and examine sources for the article before examining text. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:10, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeppers that's fine by me. Arcsincostan 01:21, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Also yeppers. Addhoc 10:27, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Good.Richardmalter 21:55, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Concise list of contested citations

Okay, what I would like to do now is form a concise list of contested citations. I am going to make a heading for each person involved in this mediation. Under your heading, please place a bulleted list of citations whose reliability you dispute. Please indicate concisely why - no need for detail at this time, because we will discuss each in turn. Something like "because it is a Web site not subject to scholarly analysis or fact-checking" will suffice for now. For citations that are currently in the article, you can simply refer to them by their number in the reference list. Additionally, you may list citations that are not currently in the article for whatever reason, and you would like to include.

Once we have the lists made, we will discuss them in turn. We will attempt to reach a consensus about their reliability, and the manner in which they are applied in the article. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 23:52, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Arcsincostan

I have no objection to any of the cites in the article at present as they are presently employed, ie, cites of Omura and ‘alternative’ journals such as ‘Medical Acupuncture’ are acceptable only for citing what claims are made – not for the validity of those claims.

To that end, please also list any citations whose application you dispute. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

In their present form and use, none. I would note, however, that in reviewing the entry's cites I find #14 is now a dead link, and #15, at least at present, seems not to respond. Arcsincostan 03:05, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc

Citations that should be reviewed:

• 4 - would prefer a reference that says pseudoscience, not entirely convinced this citation should be used for description of quackery.
• 14 - agree, doesn't appear to be working

Addhoc 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375

I think that, as Arcsincostan says, we must be careful to separate the purpose of each source as we establish its reliability. For example and specifically, the Omura BODRT articles are sufficiently reliable IMO to represent Omura's claims about BDORT, but are absolutely not reliable as acceptable scientific validation or evaluation of BDORT. Similarly for Solar Papers and other Omura claims.

In general, I agree with the sources as currently used in the article. I think the main missing component is in the wording stage, where IMO we must clarify near each claim that this claim has not been scientifically evaluated, except in the NZ Tribunal report. My concern is that a casual reader may only read the claim and miss the disclaimers that appear elsewhere in the article, possibly in a different section, and may be misled into believing that WP is supporting these claims by stating them in an uncontested fashion. Crum375 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

Richardmalter

contest:

a) #4 Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant. Reason: inferred WP:OR citation only; no direct quotation for derogatory term used.

b) #14 ^ Dominic Lu, quoted on Yoshiaki Omura's Japanese web site. Reason: info used is WP:OR.

c) #6 Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand findings in re Richard Gorringe and the PMRT/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. - citation OK. Reason: selectively quoted from object to. Also WP:OR using this citation object to.

Citations to add:

A) Shinnick et al Research: http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html.

B) Printed published material: Manaka use and opinon of BDORT: Manaka, Yoshio, Chasing the Dragon's Tail: The Theory and Practice of Acupuncture in the Work of Yoshio Manaka, Paradigm Publications 1995, page 142.

C) http://www.ecim-europe.info/bdort/?p=yu_bdort&lang=en. Usage citation of BDORT in Europe.

D) O RING TEST CLINIC in Japan, usage citation: http://www.baobab.or.jp/~oring/e_basis.shtml.

E) http://pfarber.sites.uol.com.br/ORT98.htm. Usage and test of BDORT in Brazil.

F) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649479432793723588&q=Bi+digital+o-ring+test. Video presentation of dentist having used selective drug uptake enhancment method.

G) Published paper. 'Preventive effect of Coriandrum sativum (Chinese parsley) on localized lead deposition in ICR mice. ' J Ethnopharmacol 2001 Oct;77(2-3):203-8 (ISSN: 0378-8741) Aga M; Iwaki K; Ueda Y; Ushio S; Masaki N; Fukuda S; Kimoto T; Ikeda M; Kurimoto M ,Hayashibara Biochemical Laboratories, Inc., Fujisaki Institute, 675-1 Fujisaki, Okayama 702-8006, Japan. -- paper confirms Omura's finding of effect of coriander as mercury removing agent; before Omura mentioned this effect, there is no report of coriander's property in this regard. ie Omura discoverer (via BDORT). Richardmalter 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

H) http://www.jsam.jp/english/journal/abstracts/a_21.php?lang=en&id=20 citation of use of BDORT and its usefulness.

I) [1] BDORT, Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, developed by Yoshiaki Omura, Columbia University New York, is a technique that is not found within the context of Traditional Chinese Medicine. Applied in bio-resonance phenomena, it offers diagnosis preambles and futuristic treatments already applied by many physicians all over the world.

Comments on citations proposed by Richardmalter

Arcsincostan

I’m afraid I need clarification as to how Richard uses the term ‘original research’ before I can meaningfully address his desired cites and deletions. Arcsincostan 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I've read Richard's comments to Addhoc and Crum375. I can make very little if any sense of them. Perhaps I'm slow. Arcsincostan 13:51, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc

Could you provide more information about B and G. In the case of G, could you advise whether you are proposing to state this was discovered by BDORT? Addhoc 11:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>> re B, as citated as far as source. Exact context and wording as follows: Chapter: Diagnostic Assessment, p141, Palpating thr back and other areas of the body, last para:

Distinguishing functional hypersensitivity from a lack of fuctional change in sensitivity is also difficult. The following diagram shows. .[this description graphically] [more discussion re changes of tonus and aesthesia from hyper to hypo and the 'lag' of tonus behind aesthesia in this progression]. . . P142, because of these factors, when using palpation as the key diagnostic process, we need to be careful and consistent. We must eliminate all unnecessary variations. [BTW being electrically grounded previously noted as one of these]. We also need other simple diagnstic checks to confirm our diagnosis in difficult cases, such as those involving functional hyposensitivity. Some experienced practitioners use the "pinching" technique. We like to use the Omura bi-digital O-ring technique, which has proven useful in these and many other cases. [further numerous paragraphs and many case studies on many pages give actual applications in palpation diagnosis and confirming palpatory findings explicitly using BDORT]. Manaka was a practicing army surgeon, an MD, and there is a prestigous prize on his name in Japan annually. There is also a hospital named after him in is honour in Japan.

Re G: yes, more or less. I would word something like, Omura used his techniques to discover the heavy metal extracting property of coriander which is not recorded in the medical literature before him and which has recently been confirmed in this independent full 'scientific' controlled [citation] study.

Coriander study here: [[2]] <<<<<<<<<<<<<< Richardmalter 09:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

See my comments in my section and in the sub page about that paper. Crum375 11:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Probably we should start a new header as following the thread is getting tricky. Anyway, regarding B, this seems fairly ok, essentially in my understanding, Yoshiaki Omura invented a procedure that gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications, but this procedure didn't gain widespread acceptance in conventional medicine. Regarding G, I don't have any problem with the concept that a herb has medicinal benefits. However, the link to BDORT appears to be slender. What reliable source provides this linkage? Addhoc 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375

Will comment within 12 hours or so. Crum375 11:45, 20 August 2006 (UTC)

OK, here are some comments (I pasted Richard's points and commented):

contest:

a) #4 Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant. Reason: inferred WP:OR citation only; no direct quotation for derogatory term used.

I also cannot find Quackwatch using the term 'quackery' directly for BDORT - maybe Arc can comment here

>>>>>>>>yes<<<<<<<<<<

b) #14 ^ Dominic Lu, quoted on Yoshiaki Omura's Japanese web site. Reason: info used is WP:OR.

WP:OR is not allowed for WP editors. It is not applicable to non-WP editors. To my knowledge Dominic Lu is not a WP editor and if he is quoted on Omura's site, his words are quotable to my understanding.

>>>>>>>>>>>>> I meant that the source info which is OK in itself has been used by the WP editor in a way that WP:OR material has been created from this source info by the WP editor and this is what has been used in the article. ie inferences have been made that are WP:OR.<<<<<<<

c) #6 Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand findings in re Richard Gorringe and the PMRT/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. - citation OK. Reason: selectively quoted from object to. Also WP:OR using this citation object to.

I am not sure what the objection is. I am not sure how using a citation can possbily become WP:OR in any situation.

>>>>>>>>>>>> same re WP:OR as immediate above point. As you dont comment on the selective quoting from this source, I take it that you will not object to the para beong quoted directly that states that the Tribunial noted that Gorringes techniques did not seem to be like Omura's and so Omura's material did not help them much? I see selective quoting = censorship = WP:Bias <<<<<<<<<<<<

>>>>>>>>ADDITIONAL COMMENT: re using this citation: I also think its correct and important to use this info to say in whatever wording, that as Crum375 noted earlier, that the Tribunial ruled generically on PMRT (in which they lumped the BDORT); but that also they were not experts in electromagnetism - which is the key claimed mechanism of BDORT - so are not experts to comment/evaluate on this, and so should not be quoted in anyway that implies this<<<<<<<<

Regarding electromagnetism, as I noted earlier, all medical doctors receive training in physics and hence are familiar with the basic laws of electromagnetism. The issue here is a medical procedure, and regardless of the laws of nature being harnessed for it, it is the responsibility of the medical doctors and professors employed as experts by the Tribunal to provide an evaluation of the procedure. The experts can always seek advice from other experts in other fields if they see a need for it. The point is that the Tribunal is appointed by the NZ government to evaluate medical procedures and practitioners, and they may bring any experts they feel are needed to provide the desired expertise. We as WP cannot sit and pass judgment on their abilities, except to note their qualifications and results. I think it is very clear that the NZ Tribunal is a reliable source, and hence their expertise in evaluating a medical procedure is assumed. And again note that 'expertise' also means knowing when you need access to another expert in a related field. Crum375 02:54, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Citations to add:

A) Shinnick et al Research: http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html.

This is not scientific and does not meet scientific criteria. Shinnick, the author, has a PhD in an unknown field, and is not MD. I cannot see how an article published by a non-MD, by a person with a degree in an unknown field, can be WP-acceptable as a medical evaluation of a radical medical technique. This technique, BDORT, makes extraordinary claims (can diagnose and/or cure most diseases known to man in minutes), and per WP policy must be backed up by extraordinary proof. An article by a non-MD in an alternative medicine publication fails that criterion IMO and is unacceptable.

>>>>>>>> What definition of scientific are you using? I understand it to mean experimental. In what way was the Tribunial opining actually scientific? If you want to use scientific as a criteria, we need to agree on a definition, and then apply it equally to all claimed scientific assessments: ie yours of the Tribunial opining. Note also as I have repeated many times, the Shinnick research is in incontestable fact the only actual test of the BDORT that we have that is from a reliable neutral, third party source. Note also that Shinnick is the publisher of the article, but that the article explicity states the practical involvment in this actual testing of the BDORT of a number of named Board-certified MDs. That is, along with Shinnick, MDs carried out this testing. This is an incontestable verifiable fact. Shinnick is also an extremely reputable man who has addressed US Congress on health matters. Recall please, in good faith, that when much previously, I asked you for the exact criteria you regarded as WP:reliable/neutral for a journal citation, you gave them, and I found that this article met all the criteria you set yourself. Including the peer-review status. That is for the others here, it is established that this research paper is Board certified MD peer-reviewed, in a neutral, reliable journal "By MDs for MDs". <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<

For me 'scientific' evaluation has to start with a mainstream certified scientist, with a recognized degree in the subject of interest. This person would have to publish a paper in a recognized mainstream publication like 'Nature' or 'NEJM' for a radical invention or discovery that revolutionizes medicine (diagnose/treat most diseases known to man by spreading apart the patient's fingers, possibly even via remote phone connection). Since this is an extraordinary claim, it requires per WP policy extraordinary proof. The Shinnick paper author has a degree in an unknown (to me) field, and is not MD, while presenting a medical study of revolutionary claims. The MD's mentioned in the paper are listed as 'helpers', they are not authors or co-authors, as their name is not in the title or abstract. The Journal is an Acupuncture publication, not a general medicine or general science publication. As such, I don't consider this source acceptable for WP purposes to prove the efficacy of a technique with extraordinary claims. Crum375 22:30, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

>>>>Crum375, you wrote re citation A: For me 'scientific' evaluation has to start with a mainstream certified scientist, with a recognized degree in the subject of interest. - this is just what i meant by consistently applying definitions: this immediately rules out the idea that the Tribunial gave a scientific evaluation - none of them had a degree in electromagnetism. Physicians only have high school level physics - which varies from country to country, but in any case certainly not a degree of the caliber to be considered an expert in electromagnetism - just ask your doctor his expert explanation of non-locality, tesla coils, and the significance of electromagnetic potentials in quantum theory! But I'll also discuss this more fully in due order. And we can discuss a working definition then etc.<<<<

B) Printed published material: Manaka use and opinon of BDORT: Manaka, Yoshio, Chasing the Dragon's Tail: The Theory and Practice of Acupuncture in the Work of Yoshio Manaka, Paradigm Publications 1995, page 142.

I have to see this to comment.

>>>>>Addhoc, (Crum375) (and everyone), yes I think you have it exactly correct re citation B above. Re the coriander study, for ease of process, I'll wait till we get to it in order to discuss fully. Also otherwise makes a mediation tracking task for three:-)Richardmalter 09:37, 22 August 2006 (UTC)<<<<<<

C) http://www.ecim-europe.info/bdort/?p=yu_bdort&lang=en. Usage citation of BDORT in Europe.

I don't consider this ECIM site to be a neutral or reliable for BDORT evaluation. If you read this, it becomes clear that the "ECIM's work is largely based on the studies of Professor Y. Omura from New York ... and it is primarily based on his non-invasive diagnostic method - Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT)". I do not consider this neutral per WP policies as it is too closely related to the subject and person being evaluated.

>>>>>>> I am not sure about this and would like opinion from Addhoc and especially our Mediator. Can this site be used as opinion about the BDORT? Can this site be used about usage of the BDORT?<<<<<<<<<<

D) O RING TEST CLINIC in Japan, usage citation: http://www.baobab.or.jp/~oring/e_basis.shtml.

Fails neutrality required for reliable source.

>>>>>>>same as C above ? ? <<<<<<<<<<

E) http://pfarber.sites.uol.com.br/ORT98.htm. Usage and test of BDORT in Brazil.

Fails neutrality per above.

>>>>>>>same as C above ? ? <<<<<<<<<<

F) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649479432793723588&q=Bi+digital+o-ring+test. Video presentation of dentist having used selective drug uptake enhancment method.

Fails WP:RS. I don't see how a dentist can evaluate selective drug enhancement, and even if he somehow could, he should publish his results in a reliable mainstream scientific publication (like NEJM) for WP to consider it as scientifically acceptable.

>>>>>>>>> The dentist did in fact give his evaluation of the drug uptake method, very positively, and documents this. This is incontestable unless we think the video is a fabrication. His evaluation was also an actual test, not an opinion, like the Tribunial case. I will argue that this video evidence is WP:OK for opinion by this dentist and usage<<<<<<<<<<<<

G) Published paper. 'Preventive effect of Coriandrum sativum (Chinese parsley) on localized lead deposition in ICR mice. ' J Ethnopharmacol 2001 Oct;77(2-3):203-8 (ISSN: 0378-8741) Aga M; Iwaki K; Ueda Y; Ushio S; Masaki N; Fukuda S; Kimoto T; Ikeda M; Kurimoto M ,Hayashibara Biochemical Laboratories, Inc., Fujisaki Institute, 675-1 Fujisaki, Okayama 702-8006, Japan. -- paper confirms Omura's finding of effect of coriander as mercury removing agent; before Omura mentioned this effect, there is no report of coriander's property in this regard. ie Omura discoverer (via BDORT).

I need to read paper to comment.

>>>>>>>please see on extra page I set up and remarks to Addhoc above<<<<<<

I read your sub-page about this paper, please see my comment there - I think this reference is irrelevant to the Omura/BDORT article, but I am open to comments from others. Crum375 11:35, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I guess we need to get a hold of the published articles to be able to comment, if they are not online. Crum375 01:45, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>>>>>>I have finished replying to above comments inbetween these arrows. thanks<<<<<<<<<Richardmalter 09:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Quackwatch citation

(Archived to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/MediationArchive 1)

Discussion: Dominic Lu citation

(Archived to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/MediationArchive 1)

Discussion: NZ Richard Gorringe case

The next discussion is about this use of this citation, which is applied three times in the article: Once in the lead section, once under the heading "Bi-Digital O-Ring Test", and once under the heading "Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand Consideration".

There appear to be several points to contention about the use of this citation:

• That the term "PMRT" cannot be used interchangably with the term "BDORT".
• That usage of this citation can be original research.
• That the citation has been selectively quoted to use only negative information.

My suggestions

• WP:OR does not apply here. Original research as it applies to Wikipedia is when you use primary sources (in this case, primary sources would be Omura himself) to make your own assertions and findings about a topic. This is not the case here, as the citation has already made the assertions.
• It seems odd to me to include information from this citation in the lead paragraph, as we have not yet established in the article what PMRT is or that it is considered the same as BDORT by some. This is certainly valid, as it is properly cited, but it needs to be in the right place. For now, I suggest we remove the passage that uses this citation from the lead section, and replace it with a more generic passage that summarizes criticism for BDORT. Something like:

  The BDORT procedure has been the subject of criticism from several sources (citations here - use ones already used in the article that support this statement), as well as likened to other procedures that have been the subject of medical tribunals. (citations).

In this way, the lead section now introduces the major themes of the article: Omura, the BDORT, and the criticism of his methods.

• Rename the "Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand Consideration" section to something like "Peak Muscle Resistance Training" to properly introduce the subject matter. Then, we can summarize the major points, which are that PMRT has been asserted to be substantively identical to BDORT, and that it was the subject of this tribunal, and what the result was. Maybe something like:

  Dr. Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner from New Zealand, uses a procedure called Peak Muscle Resistance Training (PMRT), which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT (citations here). The tribunal examined his methods and found that the use of PMRT to make medical diagnoses is "unacceptable and irresponsible". (citation here)

• Richardmalter, you have suggested that this particular citation has been selectively quoted. I'm sure you realize that this entire document does not hold PMRT or BDORT in a positive light, so it would be difficult to glean positive quotes from it. You are welcome to try however; I think everyone will agree that anything from the citation can be included in this article, as long as it is used in the proper context.

Please indicate whether you agree with my suggestions. If you disagree with a particular point, please post a constructive alternative. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 16:24, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Addhoc's comments

Ok, regarding the areas of contention:

• "PMRT" cannot be used interchangeably with the term "BDORT" - agree with suggested approach of "Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT".
• Usage of this citation could be original research - agree this is a reliable secondary source.
• Citation has been selectively quoted to use only negative information - would consider quoting the prosecution, but not the defence to be inappropriate, quoting only the findings however, should be ok.

Regarding Aguerriero's suggestions:

• Agree WP:OR is not applicable.
• Agree could mention two instead of three times, however not very enthusiastic about your wording Aguerriero, would suggest instead "procedure that has gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications, but has not gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine".
• I think your wording is a definite improvement, my only suggestion would be to use the past tense throughout.
• I think Richard has indicated we should mention that Yoshiaki Omura was not invited to the tribunal. Considering the advice in WP:BLP, I think we should go along with this.

Addhoc 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard Malter's comments

Aguerriero, I got your reminder re organization, sure 100%, apologies :).

Generally I agree with things and the tenor of it. Just a few points need addressing:

OK re the WP:OR. OK re moving down and renaming.

Yes, of course realize this is 'negative' commentary; but not entirely:

OK re this: The BDORT procedure has been the subject of criticism from several sources (citations here - use ones already used in the article that support this statement), as well as likened to other procedures that have been the subject of medical tribunals. (citations).

But to fill out the (unbaised) picture of characterization and context in the lead in we need to add in this bit (something like) Addhoc's:

Yoshiaki Omura invented the BDORT that gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications, but this procedure hasn't gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine.

Just lumping the two paras together would be OK I think, so (roughly):

Yoshiaki Omura invented the BDORT that gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications (citations used in text below), but this procedure hasn't gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine. The BDORT procedure has been the subject of criticism from several sources (citations here), as well as likened to other procedures that have been the subject of medical tribunals. (citations used in text below).

But before that is finally complete, we need to evaluate the other citations we haven't go to yet, because I will argue to add that, . .. acceptance by some medical professionals (ie MDs who are not acupuncturists, dentists) etc. If citations allowed.

But happy to go with above for now!

Next point.

Not entirely OK re this: Dr. Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner from New Zealand, uses a procedure called Peak Muscle Resistance Training (PMRT), which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT (citations here). The tribunal examined his methods and found that the use of PMRT to make medical diagnoses is "unacceptable and irresponsible". (citation here)

. . .First because they did not actually test anything, they gave their opinion. So re final wording suggest: the Tribunial gave their opinion that. ..

. . and because, Re selective quoting, this is what I have argued should be included, it is direct quote from the prosecution:

"it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent". [line,para citation]

This is clearly differentiating. But later I acknowledge as plain fact that they lump BDORT together with PMRT [many citations]; which is potentially confusing. I think Crum375 got it just right previously, when said that (my wording now):

The Tribunial gave opinion on PMRT generically.

That's why I drafted previously:

The Tribunial noted at an early stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent". However, the Tribunal, considered the BDORT to be generically a form of PMRT and examined and dismissed any claims of scientific validity of Peak Muscle Resistance Testing, offering the following summary statement of findings: etc

So to make clear what I am saying, I dont object to which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT , as it is factual, but just needs that other quote worked in beforehand for chronological sense.

Something like:

Dr. Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner from New Zealand, used his variation of Peak Muscle Resistance Training (PMRT), which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand considered in the course of malpractice hearings against Gorringe. The Tribunial noted at an earlier stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent"(citation). However, the Tribunial later gave opinion on PMRT generically, and asserted that PMRT is substantively identical to the BDORT (citations here), and that the use of PMRT to make medical diagnoses is "unacceptable and irresponsible". (citation here)

The last point is about the expertize question. Omura et al do explicitly state that the key mechanism of the BDORT is electromagnetic/ism (EM). They are talking at a level of EM (whether reality or fictitious) well above any of the Tribunial experts or any regular MD. So I would like comment on this please. Basically I am saying that the wording cannot correctly suggest that the Tribunial was capable or did actually 'hands-on' evaluate the BDORT mechanism. Which is why:

The Tribunial gave opinion on PMRT generically is what I am arguing is all we can accurately say they actually did (as above). Which is being really accurate (which I equate to NPOV).

Is there a WP:OK way to add that they were not experts to actually evaluate the BDORT claimed mechanisms, that could be added in somewhere?

Richardmalter 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Awesome, thanks for your responses. Your assertions are very reasonable and I'm sure we will reach agreement quickly on this particular citation. Just waiting for Crum375 to weigh in. As to your last question, I will work on wording it in such a way as to merely state that the tribunal used PMRT and BDORT interchangeably in places, but that they didn't really possess the information necessary to make that judgement. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I should be able to comment in a day or so. Thanks, Crum375 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

I am enjoying this mediation process a lot :-) Thank you.Richardmalter 06:15, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, very positive discussion, thanks also. Addhoc 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375's comments

I think the effective equivalence between PMRT and BDORT usage in the NZ report is not an issue, as it is accepted by Richard Malter. I also think that we agree that the NZ report ended up lumping BDORT/PMRT and specifically the somewhat variant technique practiced by Gorringe in one generic basket, and I think Richard agrees with that also. I would emphasize the final report's summary results and conclusions, with the citations we have in the article. I would also clarify that although the Tribunal recognized that the specific technique used by Gorringe was a BDORT variant, its final report includes it in the same generic class as BDPRT. Regarding Richard's issue of 'expertise', as I have noted elsewhere, this is a medical issue decided by a recognized government board. They have access to all the experts and expertise they need, in their opinion, to reach their conclusions. Therefore, given their credentials, I see no reason to question the scientific level of their results, unless we can find a properly sourced critique of their report, which we could then cite. Crum375 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I do not think this is right. It is not a question of the "effective equivalence" - which I do not think is correct. The Tribunial noted that Gorringe's method did not really resemble Omura's. They said it, it is clear, there is no real question there. The point is that they lumped BDORT with PMRT and gave opinion on PMRT. This needs to be very clear. Regarding the expertise issue, what the Tribunial gave opinion on was PMRT generically. They may have had access to all the experts, I dont know; but the fact is that they were not experts in the field in which it is necessary to be in order to be able to evaluate the BDORT mechanism. This also needs to be very clear. The fact that they were a medical tribunial judging a medical doctor is just the lay of the land. The specifics are what is really what. They had zero credentials in this field - simply because they did not try to evaluate the BDORT (as they noted earlier Gorringe's method did not resemble BDORT very much at all and so they had no logical need to). If you want to use the term scientific, then it needs to be clarified what you want to say with this. Science is definitely not about giving opinion. It is about testing and refuting. And explaining observations. They did not do any science whatsoever in regard to the BDORT (or PMRT); no tests, no refuting of other's results, no explaining observations - because they did not observe the BDORT (or PMRT) being used; they merely gave their opinion on PMRT. The scientific level of their results is non-existant and so non-discussable: there are no results, they carried out no tests, they did not (claim to) conduct any kind of test whatsoever. This needs to be made clear.Richardmalter 09:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I think we agree that the NZ Tribunal (NZT) consider PMRT and BDORT equivalent for their purposes, despite what they consider minor variations. It is clear that the NZT did not perform their own scientific study or research - that is not their purpose or goal. Their job is to see if there is proper scientific justification for the procedures, and like us at WP they came up empty - there is no known credible scientific study proving the safety or efficacy of either PMRT or BDORT (which again they consider equivalent or synonymous). In medical science, it is not like the legal justice system where you are considered 'innocent until proven guilty' - you must reliably prove efficacy and safety of a medical procedure, drug or device prior to promoting it to and using it on the public. It is the lack of such proof of efficacy and safety that the NZT are decrying, and they consider the use of unproven techniques, in lieu of established and proven ones, to be 'irresponsible' - this is why they fined Gorringe (who is a 'medical practitioner' not a doctor to my knowledge), stripped him of his license, etc. Again, all the NZT needed is to find a reliable source that proves the efficacy of PMRT/BDORT, and they didn't - they don't need to be research scientists to be able to say that no such source exists. Crum375 14:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

I think we will be able to address this in a satisfactory manner; later today I will post revised suggested rewrites that reflect everyone's concerns, and we will see if everyone agrees on them. Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Revised proposal

Based on everyone's comments, I have revised the sections again. Please review, and if everyone agrees I will edit the main article:

For use as the third paragraph of the lead section:

The BDORT procedure has gained acceptance among professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications (citations used in text below), but the procedure has not gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine. The BDORT procedure has been the subject of criticism from several sources (citations here), as well as likened to other procedures that have been the subject of medical tribunals.

For use under the heading "Peak Muscle Resistance Training"

Dr. Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner from New Zealand, uses a procedure called Peak Muscle Resistance Training (PMRT), which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand considered in the course of malpractice hearings against Gorringe. The Tribunial noted at an early stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent"(citation). However, the Tribunial later gave opinion on PMRT generically, and asserted that PMRT is substantively identical to the BDORT (citations here), and that the use of PMRT to make medical diagnoses is "unacceptable and irresponsible".

I should note that it was asserted in our discussions that the tribunal was not qualified to compare PMRT with BDORT, but I don't think we can responsibly add that to the article unless a citation can be found for someone asserting that point. Otherwise, we are introducing original research into the article. Does everyone agree on this text? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Certainly agree, very clear and well balanced. Addhoc 15:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I disagree with the statement that BDORT "has gained acceptance among professional acupuncturists". We know that Richard's practice 'sometimes' uses it from Richard himself, but that is from a non-reliable source (WP-wise). We know that Shinnick, a PhD in an unknown field used it for a study, and published his results in an Acupuncture journal, but we really have no WP-acceptable and reliable basis to state that any professional acupuncturists have accepted BDORT and certainly not that a significant number of them have done so. If there is such a reliable source that says how many acupuncturists are using it, I'd like to see it.

Richardmalter, do you have a citation for the statement about acupuncturists? If not, we should drop the statement until a citation can be found. Please bear in mind that the citation should be a reliable journal or article unrelated to Omura's business interests. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the NZT summary, I believe a summary should start 'top-down'. IOW, it should say that the NZT considered PMRT generically the same as BDORT and therefore its ruling applies equally to both procedures, and both of them are 'irresponsible and unacceptable' to use. Then we can, if needed, delve into internal details, that the Omura materials furnished by Gorringe were not considered relevant because PMRT was technically different from BDORT, but they were still the same generically, so the conclusion applies to both.

Can you quote a passage from the tribunal that supports this statement that their ruling applies to each procedure? Although they use the terms interchangably throughout the document, I think it is a stretch to say outright that their ruling applies to both unless they state that plainly in the document. Otherwise, we should limit the statement to say that the ruling applieas to PMRT, which they liken to BDORT. That may seem like weasel-wording, but we have to be careful not to draw conclusions that are not foregone. --Aguerriero (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I also think that we should include a statement that BDORT and its variants have not been subjected to scientific testing and have not been clinically validated for safety or effectiveness. This statement IMO must follow each section where a BDORT-like procedure is mentioned, as my concern is that someone may only read a short snippet about this new procedure that can diagnose/cure all diseases from common cold to cancer, and reach a hasty conclusion that WP 'said so' and effectively endorses it, because a disclaimer was not visible nearby. This is a safety and liability issue and it cannot be dismissed rashly. Crum375 20:51, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

That sort of disclaimer is not appropriate for Wikipedia. Better to use this approach: Instead of saying something outright like "BDORT can diagnose cancer", we say, "Proponents of BDORT have claimed that it can diagnose cancer." I don't see, however, how this argument applies to the passages we are discussing? --Aguerriero (talk) 21:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't necessarily mean that the disclaimer must be a legal boilerplate template. But your example is good as a starting point: "Proponents of BDORT have claimed that it can diagnose cancer." and I would then add: "There is no known scientifically acceptable validation of these claims". I think just including the claim without clarifying that it is not based on scientifically acceptable evidence is misleading to the reader. The issue is that WP cannot normally present or be a source for "new science" - if it repeats an unsupported claim from some fringe group it must highlight the fact that there is no source for its validation.

Normally WP would just drop the whole package - if we can't find good scientific support we drop it per Jimbo etc. - but in this case we have a person who was found notable and thus we are forced to repeat the claims even if they are not scientifically founded. Hence we need the balancing language to clarify that we found no acceptable supporting sources. Crum375 21:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Aguerriero's drafts, yes agree with Addhoc they are balanced. I dont agree with any of Crum375's comments. Re a citation for use by acupuncturists, see B that I listed above that Addhoc has already commented on positively. Manaka was a world-famous acupuncturist, MD, and army suregeon; the citation meets WP criteria 100%. Shinnick is also a licenced Acupuncturist in New York, USA. I will dig up some more citations. In anay case the text is WP verifiable. Should be Peak Muscle Resistance *Testing*. Thanks so far.Richardmalter 23:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Unless I am missing something, I don't see the Manaka paper online. I said previously that I can't comment on it without seeing it. You are saying that AddHoc commented on the Manaka paper 'favorably', please help me find that comment. As far as Shinnick's credentials, can you supply a reference that he is certified as an acupuncturist in NY? Also, even if he is, and did use BDORT, that doesn't mean that the community as a whole is, or that even he himself is using it beyond the published study. Crum375 23:32, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Repeating: Re a citation for use by acupuncturists, see B, Crum375 search for "Anyway, regarding B, this seems fairly ok" above under my quoting of the book (I know you havn't seen it but please assume good faith with my quoting as agreed at the outset); the citation meets WP criteria 100%. Citation H is from the website of the Japan Acupuncture and Moxibustion Society. Re Shinnick is also a licenced Acupuncturist in New York, USA: search term "Phillip Shinnick, PhD, L.Ac." at [3]. Another acupuncurist using BDORT [4] In any case the text is WP verifiable. Richardmalter 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I fear we may spiral again into the same problems we had before the mediation. I suggest, as I did at the start, that we not introduce new references and sources en passant but instead try to get each one separately qualified. As I mentioned above, I have not seen the Manaka reference and cannot comment on it - let's start with that one, as it seems to be important to you. If you can get us an online reference to Manaka's paper that would be great. Maybe Addhoc can explain how he evaluated the Manaka paper. Thanks, Crum375 23:48, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I cant understand re WP criteria what you object to or what you are saying. I'll wait for Aguerriero to comment. Effectively you have seen the Manaka reference, the exact text, which is printed as I have quoted it word for word; getting the book [5], reading the pages quoted you would read the same words. See the quotation I put in under Addhoc above.Richardmalter 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If this is Richard(?) then I am not sure what you mean. The text I saw was about the corinader plant and I didn't understand its relevancy to the article - is this the one? Crum375 00:55, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sorry, me, Richard, please reread comment immediately above - point you to text.Richardmalter 00:59, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

If you mean the new citation you have in your latest message, I don't see it telling us that 'The BDORT procedure has gained acceptance among professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications'. For me 'medical' means mainstream medical, i.e. board certified Medical Doctor with an MD degree, and the statement would require, IMO, a reliable and neutral secondary source telling us that in fact the acupuncture community has adopted the BDORT technique, and that some of the BDORT users are real MD's with 'medical qualifications'. I don't see that in any of the existing sources, including your latest. Crum375 01:18, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regaring the Manaka reference - Addhoc did weakly agree to use the citation. I think his (and Crum375's) unease comes from the fact that we cannot verify the reference (I tried via Google Books and Amazon but the book is inaccessible). Unfortunately in the digital age we have gotten somewhat spoiled! :) I propose that we accept the reference under the banner of good faith, but entertain the notion that we may need further revision of the acupuncture statement unless further references can be found. Really, we only have the citations to prove that a minimal number of professionals have accepted BDORT as a useful procedure, am I correct?

We may have to rephrase to say "...gained acceptance among select acupunturists..." because that's really all we can prove right now. Thoughts? --Aguerriero (talk) 01:22, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Additional response to Richard: I found your hand-typed quoted text above from Manaka. I see where he says 'we like to use BDORT...', but I am not sure that this can be construed to mean the whole world is using it. You say he is in Japan, maybe 'we' are just his own small group of colleagues, maybe it's a bigger group, but only in Japan, or maybe bigger still - from those quoted words I cannot get a sense of the meaning or size of 'we', enough for me to accept it as proof (or even claim) that acupuncturists throughout the world have adopted BDORT. I also don't see where it says that 'we' represents some real MDs as opposed to just acupuncturists. Crum375 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

To Aguerriero, I could possibly live with the wording that 'some acupuncturists in Japan appear to be using BDORT in conjunction with acupuncture'. I would have a problem with including any MDs in the group, as I have yet to see a clear reliable source showing one MD actually using BDORT. Of course Omura himself is MD but his source is not neutral, plus we are trying to make a point that others have adopted it. Crum375 01:40, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I think this is WP incorrect now. I think we have to pause this and go back to evaluating the citations I listed above and what they can be used for.

References A to F, and H are citations of usage of the BDORT. Crum375 has commented above that he thinks some of them fail neutrality. I do not think this is correct. For eg, if I richard have a website that says that I use the BDORT, does WP require that we have another citation that verifies my statement about myself? We do not follow this policy for other citations: else we would need another citation that verifies the Tribunial website etc etc. And another website that verifies what Omura claims about himself and his work in the journal that he edits? But no one ever objected to using the journal that he edits, and his self-published papers to say what he does, think, claim etc. If we follow this logic we need third party citations for everything, including the Tribunial report. I insist that WP criteria be consistently applied. And I know everyone will agree with this.

It seems to me clear and verifiable that we have citations for acupuncturists using the BDORT (some that are MDs), and vice versa, MDs who were/are not acupuncturists.

For example, Manaka was an MD. Does anyone dispute this? - the book cover says so clearly as well. There is a Manaka hospital in Japan named in his honour that I previously citated - he was a well known figure. Hospitals are mainstream medical things, so are army surgeons and MDs. Does Crum375 accept or not accept the reliability of this citation? If not, on what exact WP grounds? I dug this up quickly [6]: see where it says Dr Manaka which we can cross-ref to the MD title on his book cover. I could dig up ten more that mention he was an MD. I think it starts to get ridiculous to refute this. Re crum375's comments on what "we like to use" means - he was referring to himself and his close colleagues only.

Another example, Shinnick is a licenced acupuncturist (citation provided above) - he used the BDORT not just in research - I am sure this is of course implicit in the citation; but if this is going to be argued on a pin head then I will get him to comment here directly, though I think this needs mediation comment first before I bother him to say "yes, I do".

This is another citation of an acupuncturist using the BDORT: [7] that I gave above.

I do not agree with ..gained acceptance among select acupunturists... omitting that some were MDs for the above reason: some were.

I do not agree with some acupuncturists in Japan appear to be using BDORT: "appear to" is clearly a way of wording that is trying to diminish or cast doubt on the facts that follow in the same sentence.

All we have to do to make sure that we do not mean ALL the acupuncturists on the planet is add the word "some" in The BDORT procedure has gained acceptance among *some* professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications.

However, to repeat, I think we need to return to evaluating the citations I listed above first (and their WP:OK usage) because I think it is also clear that we can say the reverse that The BDORT procedure has gained acceptance among some MDs (some who were/are acupuncturists), and dentists. at the least.

But I would first like our Mediator to comment on the third party citation problem: do we need a second or third party citation to confirm (a website/paper etc re) what John Smith says about himself John Smith? If so then this has to be consistently applied. Richardmalter 11:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I should have included more of the sentence than just that snippet, because I did not intend to omit the phrase about medical professionals. So maybe it can read, "The BDORT procedure has gained acceptance among some professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications"?

Regarding the Shinnick citation: My opinion is that this could be used to assert scientific claims, since there is evidence that article submissions undergo rigorous criteria where citations are required, like any professional journal would. My experience with journals of this type are that they are generally peer-reviewed. You cannot draw conclusions that are not drawn in the publication; simply summarize them. It can also be used to support the statments that Shinnick is a PhD (note, NOT an MD - we do not know based on this article what discipline his PhD is in) and that he uses the BDORT procedure.

I am troubled that we do not have more reliable citations to back up this passage - so far, we have one instance of an acupuncturist and MD (Manaka), and one instance of a PhD of unknown discipline (Shinnick). Frankly, that is very weak to back up our assertion. Anyone willing to take a homework assignment and try to find some more citations for people using BDORT? --Aguerriero (talk) 14:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Regarding the Shinnick article, I see the current policy of the Medical Acupuncture journal, but it is unclear to me when this policy was enacted, and whether it was in fact in place for the Shinnick article which was published 3 years ago. Remember that per WP policy, for extraordinary claims we need extraordinarily reliable sources. Crum375 14:58, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, as I have citated many times before, here states since 1996 everything peer-reviewed by MDs [8]. And to repeat again, the article states clearly that Adriano Borgna MD, and Jacob Heller MD, Celia Blumenthal MD, actively paticipated 'hands-on' in the research. So it is confirmed that it is a Reliable, Neutral, Board Certified MD peer-reviewed research paper, carried out by a PhD and 3 MDs, with a 400 patient caseload. I therefore of course agree with Aguerriero, this citation could be used to assert scientific claims, and of usage by Shinnick.Richardmalter 03:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, the reference you provide only states that peer review was added, among other changes, since the new editor arrived in 1996, it does not say when it was added, which could have been in 2004, for example. As far as Shinnick's 'helpers', if I write a paper and thank people who helped me they don't become 'authors' and are not responsible for the contents of the paper. If anyone else here disagrees, please let me know. Thanks, Crum375 03:50, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I think if we are going to argue what the word "since" (2006) means, when it obviously means since that time in context here, then the discussion is deteriorating fast. Some of the participants in the research were MDs is a factual statement. I'll wait for Mediation.Richardmalter 05:14, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I have added a new citation, labelled "I" above under headingRichardMalter for both third party usage of BDORT by MDs and efficacy. I have also obtained all the original letters in PDF (photograph form) from those MDs/PhDs that made sworn statements regarding the efficacy of the BDORT to the US Patent Office. The official stamps etc are all visible. I will upload these letters shortly. They can now also be use as major reliable, neutral evidence for the efficacy and usage of the BDORT. Altogether now, we have citations A-F, H, I (listed above). When our mediator returns, we can go through these to everyone's satisfaction. We should now be able to make very clear statments, scientifically backed, with multiple citations for both MD/PhD/acupuncturist usage and efficacy for the BDORT, worldwide.Richardmalter 23:06, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I could be wrong, but I think WP's reliable sourcing and verifiablity requirements do not allow an editor to use uploaded letters, regardless of their apparent seals and signatures, as a source. I think the correct method is to publish such material in an acceptable publication, and then refer to it. AFAICT the uploaded material would be primary sources at best. Comments from others invited. Crum375 23:40, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I think, the fact that they are cited within an official US patent office document, not separate letters, makes them secondary sources at least. I am waiting for permission to upload them.Richardmalter 09:25, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Off-topic

Gentlemen, just letting you know that I will be leaving tomorrow on holiday, returning on Tuesday, September 5. I won't have internet access so I will have to take a break from our noble efforts. If you wish, you can take initiative to open discussion sections on other citations (just copy my format) or just take a break likewise. Carry on! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I have been asked by Andy to keep an eye on this mediation and handle any questions you might have etc. while he's away. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, CrazyRussian. Can you help with working out the following point (requote from above):

For eg, if I richard have a website that says that I use the BDORT technique, does WP require that we have another citation that verifies my statement about myself? We do not follow this policy for other citations: else we would need another citation that verifies the Tribunial website etc etc. And another website that verifies what Omura claims about himself and his work in the journal that he edits? But no one ever objected to using the journal that he edits, and his self-published papers to say what he does, think, claim etc. If we follow this logic we need third party citations for everything,

Thank you.Richardmalter 03:54, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I know you are not asking me this question but here is my own response. As I understand WP rules, for an article about a person, you can generally use that person's own Web site(s) for biographical information about the person and to relate his/her opinions or claims, without the need to prove the site's reliability or notability. This, however, only applies to the article's subject's site(s) and only to provide us his/her opinions or CV - not for any other factual data. Crum375 12:34, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi, I won't be directly involved in this mediation from now on, good luck to CrazyRussian! Addhoc 21:29, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Dropping like flies around here, sheesh! Well, I also must be leaving due to personal circumstances. Crum375 and Richardmalter, I will be soliciting a replacement mediator who should arrive soon to pick up where I left off. Good luck! --Aguerriero (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

BDORT Patent Affidavits

[[9]] Richardmalter 09:42, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

• I could be wrong but my guess is that this is not a WP-acceptable source. I welcome others' comments. Crum375 19:45, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, regardless of what is decided, I have a request. Please let me know if you agree or not, thank you. Would you please read through some or all of the affidavits. I ask you to do this to try to persuade you that the BDORT is not a dangerous tool itself, but conversely could, as some of the testifiers say, in fact save many lives, by early diagnosis of cancer etc, that currently cannot be detected by standard medical scans, due to the high sensitivity of the BDORT, for eg in Japan where ST cancer is prominent. Please consider that not all or any of these people are complete fools and/or commercially biased etc, and that they might be saying something worth listening to. I understand from your comments on Addhoc's Talk page a while ago that you consider it important to 'warn' the public about the dangers of relying on the BDORT for diagnosis and treatment (in the light of the NZ Tribunial, which I understand you read as authoritative information that the BDORT and PMRT are all medically irrelevant and useless and dangerous). But as the Tribunial stated, Gorringe was doing something quite different of his own invention. And again I ask you to consider what these affidavits say under oath. Thank you.Richardmalter 09:51, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I think you have some basic misconceptions, so let me try to set the record straight. First, you keep assuming that your task is to somehow convince me personally in the efficacy of BDORT to be able to move forward. Nothing could be further from the truth. My own 'belief' that BDORT is either quackery or the greatest gift to mankind has absolutely nothing to do with anything we do here at WP. All we care about here is to follow WP's reliable sourcing rules, which are actually fairly simple, and in a way similar to NZT's rules. We assume that nothing is true or worth mentioning in WP unless we have excellent sources for it. This is especially true when the supposed 'facts' are controversial, and even more so when they are 'extraordinary' scientific claims, in which case WP requires extraordinary proof. Now let me address the issue of WP-acceptable sources. WP is not a court of law. We don't require or necessarily accept notarized affidavits. We do require and insist on verifiable sources. Note that we don't even need incontrovertible sources - 2 sources could be at odds as to the truth and we could accept them both if they are both verifiable, but we accept not what was said by the source, but rather that the source said what it said.

I should mention that NZT and science in general operate on a similar basis. NZT does not directly debunk BDORT because they really don't know that it's false - but they do know, as do we here, that we have not been able to find acceptable scientific validation of the technique.

Now let me emphasize that if you have some sworn affidavits, you can't just upload them to WP - that would not be acceptable as a WP-source - at most, uploaded items serve as illustrations of mentioned and otherwise supported facts. You can publish them in some reliable publication and provide a link to it, but even then, the most we could do is to state that 'source X said Y'.

To summarize, I think you are barking up the wrong tree. There is no need to convince me personally of anything, since my own personal convictions are useless to WP, and you cannot 'upload' evidence - you must provide links to WP-reliable sources. I hope this helps. Thanks, Crum375 16:00, 3 September 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, we have been through this before; I think I made a mistake to open it up again. Your comments on Addhoc's Talk page show that you very clearly have a (well intentioned) bias regarding this entry, as well as your requests for unprecedented usage of 'warnings' that our Mediator (and earlier Addhoc) has told you are not appropriate to WP, as well as other actions by you previously. So I will leave it there and return to a strictly WP criteria discussion. Privately you may to decide or not to read through the affidavits. I will not continue this discussion thread, and am not expecting a reply regarding this. Thanks.Richardmalter 08:10, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Gentlemen, please read my last note above, under the Off-topic heading. Cheers --Aguerriero (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Removing negative poorly sourced material without discussion

Wikipedia policy states, "This article is about a living person and the Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons policy must be adhered to. Specifically, unsourced or poorly sourced negative material should not be posted to this article or its talk page(s). Such material must be removed without hesitation. The three-revert rule does not apply to such removals."

Because of this clear Wikipedia policy aimed to avoid hurting people, in addition to removing all false and misleading references based on the idea that Dr. Gorringe's use of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is the same as Dr. Omura's use, which I have shown based on the record to be untrue (Revision as of 06:34, 18 July 2006 (edit), repeated below with edits for completeness and clarity), I will also remove all references to the false and misleading idea that Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has not been independently or thoroughly reviewed, examined or evaluated, for the following reasons.

Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test passed through a number of vigorous examinations and evaluations by reputable professors in medical and dental schools, as follows.

United States Patent Documentation. The U.S. patent office took more than seven years of vigorous evaluation before granting a patent for Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. The first U.S. patent application was rejected because the claim seemed too unbelievable to be true. But when the patent lawyer demanded proof that the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test does not work, he pointed out that the evaluating officer made an incorrect judgment. Subsequently, the patent office requested more experimental and clinical proof supporting the claim. After three years of extensive research, findings were presented to the patent office. The patent office agreed that Dr. Omura obtained the results he claimed on his patent application; however, the patent officer stated there was no proof other people could obtain the same results.

Therefore unlike most U.S. patent applications, the U.S. patent office requested independent evaluations of the validity of the methods of Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, to be conducted by M.D.s or D.D.S.s with well established reputations in their specialties, or by professors in medical and dental schools. These independent evaluations took another three years. After studying and repeating the experiments, several professors confirmed the validity of Dr. Omura’s patent claim. These included Albert Cooke, M.D., Professor and former Chairman of the Department of Neurosurgery at New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn; Joel Friedman, D.D.S., Professor of Dentistry at New York University; Simon Freed, Ph.D., Research Scientist of Brookhaven National Laboratory and Professor of Neurology and Biochemistry at New York Medical College; Jason Shu, M.D., OBGYN, Member of the State Board of Medicine at Pennsylvania State; Chifuyu Takeshige, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Physiology and Dean of the School of Medicine, Showa University, Tokyo, and former Visiting Scholar of the Department of Physiology at the University of Pennsylvania; Hiroaki Nakajima, M.D., Ph.D., Director of the Pulmonary Division and Associate Professor of the Department of Internal Medicine, Showa University, Japan and former Visiting Professor at the Mayo Clinic, U.S.A.; Takesuke Muteki, M.D., Ph.D., Professor and Chairman of the Department of Anesthesiology at Kurume University Medical School in Japan; Noriyuki Tani, D.D.S., Ph.D., Associate Professor at Seijo Dental School in Japan; Yasuhiro Shimotsuura, M.D., Leader of Digestive Organ Research and Director of Medicine at St. Maria’s Hospital, the second largest hospital in Japan; Maja Tcherkezova, M.D., National Institute of Neurology in Sophia, Bulgaria; and Brother Michael Losco, Assistant Professor of Electrical Engineering at Manhattan College, to name eleven.

These eleven well-established individuals with excellent credentials to act as expert witnesses, each studied, investigated and evaluated Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-ring Test in his own specialty, and provided scientific and clinical evidence of the efficacy of this test to the United States Patent and Trademark Office. They provided this evidence supporting the efficacy of Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-ring Test by affidavits taken under oath under penalty of imprisonment if they make a false statement or claim.

Therefore, any negative statements or claims that contradict the efficacy of Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-ring Test, such as associating it with quackery or pseudoscience or different methods, and that are unsupported by actual research including experimental data or verifiable fact or clinical evidence available for public inspection, will be removed from this article according to Wikipedia Policy. Such unsupported claims are dishonest, false and misleading, and by definition such irresponsible violation of Wikipedia policy with respect to living persons is indeed quackery, meaning the actions, claims, or methods of one who, with little or no foundation, pretends to have skill or knowledge in a particular field, and presents his opinion as if it were fact.

For example, literature searches are not actual research. The mere existence of a literature citation does not justify its indiscriminate or irresponsible use; i.e., to artificially bolster negative opinion or material and appearing to give it legitimacy by misappropriating a literature citation. Such is obviously the case in the false claim that Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test has been characterized as quackery. The citation (Note 4) to bolster this false claim takes us to http://www.quackwatch.org/01QuackeryRelatedTopics/PhonyAds/qray.html and to an article titled, "Q-Ray Bracelet Marketed with Preposterous Claims," in which it states that the company that markets the product, "QT, Inc., claims that its bracelets can be tested by testing finger strength before and after wearing one", and then describes a test it calls the O-ring test or the Omura test, "said to have been devised during the 1970s by a Japanese doctor named Yoshiaki Omura".

First, during his workshops for physicians and dentists, Dr. Omura often advises people to avoid wearing metal bracelets for reasons he explains. Moreover, any responsible person familiar with Dr. Omura's actual Bi-Digital O-Ring Test reading this description would know immediately that it is totally inadequate and unacceptable because it misses the essence of the actual test, and therefore misrepresents and discredits Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test by making it seem like a toy anyone can use after reading one paragraph. This idea is preposterous. Yet more preposterous is that the author of the Wikipedia article takes this same paragraph as his single source and sole evidence to invent and support a claim that the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test "has been characterized as quackery"! By this example, I trust the reader can see why I will remove all such poorly sourced negative material according to Wikipedia policy; it is absurd.

In conclusion, it took more than seven years of vigorous research and evaluation of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test before a U.S. patent was granted. Finally, a Japanese science documentary television program comparable to NOVA in the United States documented basic research and clinical applications of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. On patients randomly selected from new patients waiting to be examined at the out-patient clinic of a major hospital, the first non-invasive diagnosis was performed using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test to pinpoint the exact location and nature of a pathology where the examining doctor knew only the chief complaint, such as abdominal discomfort in one case. Within 30 minutes, the non-invasive Bi-Digital O-Ring Test located a very small area (less than 5 mm in diameter) of this patient's stomach with a possible diagnosis of stomach cancer. Both the outline of her stomach and the exact location of the possible cancer were mapped on her body by Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing. Then the same patient was evaluated by independent specialists using the latest standard laboratory tests, including X-ray after swallowing barium, fiberoptic gastroscopic examination with indigocarmine, and biopsy. Then the results were compared and found to be identical.

Three clinical cases with entire examinations, including a case f neck pain involving the male TV interviewer, were documented in this TV documentary. The producer and his staff spent over five years from planning to completion of the TV documentary, which was broadcast as two 30 minute science documentary programs and included interviews of professors doing actual research from various universities in Japan. These broadcasts received positive feedback by the medical viewers and the public and were later translated into English. They provided a scientific basis for Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test utilizing both animal and human research, and confirmed the validity of a Non-Invasive Diagnosis using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Because the documentaries showed that the findings obtained by using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test were proved correct by the latest standard laboratory tests, and because of the validations by many professors and experts as indicated above, a U.S. patent was officially granted in 1993.

All affidavits as well as the extensive evaluation history of Dr. Omura's patent are available for public inspection upon request from the United States Patent and Trademark Office. In addition, the English version of the Japanese science documentary television programs are available through the Tokai Television Station, Nagoya City, Japan. The record speaks for itself. In my opinion, any person who with an open mind and neutral perspective reads these affidavits and watches these TV documentaries will immediately recognize the discrediting statements I am removing from the Wikipedia article on Yoshiaki Omura, M.D., Sc.D., are absolutely false, misleading, and harming the reputation of decent living persons.

On the other hand, as a small leaf can hide the sun, any closed-minded or narrow-minded person with an agenda and audacity to generate negative opinion and material about a living person, and use sources without diligently examining their relevance, validity or quality, cannot be expected to be convinced by obvious truth, unfortunately. Therefore instead of attempting to negotiate with such people, the Wikipedia policy to remove such material immediately and repeatedly as necessary is far more suitable and effective, and will be adhered to.

Revision as of 06:34, 18 July 2006 (edit) Telomere+ (Talk | contribs) (Clarification of the finding of the Medical Practitoner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand) "The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test was considered by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in the course of its judgment of the case of Richard Gorringe. In the Tribunal's final report on that case, which is the only known recorded opinion of the BDORT by a mainstream medical body, the Tribunal found that '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity.'[3]

The incomplete quotation from the Tribunal's final report contained in the previous sentence requires clarification, because it leads the reader to conclude that PMRT [BDORT] practiced by Dr. Gorringe and condemned by the Tribunal equals the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test practiced by Dr. Omura. This conclusion is false. In fact, in paragraph 290 on page 58 of the 142 page document, the Medical Practitoner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand clearly stated:

"290. Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to a Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.” (DATED at Wellington this 5th day of August 2003, at the end of the proceeding.)

This paragraph clearly indicates that Dr. Gorringe’s method is different from Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Dr. Gorringe misrepresented Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test by calling it the same thing and using something different. Paragraph 292 on pages 59-60 includes Dr. Gorringe’s description of the so-called Bi-Digital O-Ring Test he used. This description clearly has nothing to do with Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Dr. Gorringe’s method is a combination of a modified German electrical diagnostic method developed by Dr. Voll and some strange form of O-Ring finger technique, which Dr. Omura never used or taught. In addition, Dr. Gorringe’s proceeding uses the other name PMRT more often and in paragraph 290 above the word ‘BDORT’ is in parenthesis. These facts support the idea that Dr. Gorringe misrepresented the Omura Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and confused it with something that is different from the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Dr. Omura developed and practices and teaches.

Finally in this regard, Dr. Richard Gorringe, M.D. of New Zealand called Dr. Omura a few times during 1993-1994 and indicated he had a problem. He claimed he was being prosecuted as a result of using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in New Zealand and asked Dr. Omura to come to defend the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. When Dr. Omura asked him how he performed the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, according to his description what he was doing had very little to do with Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and work. In addition, Dr. Gorringe’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test did not meet the minimum medical standards because he did not seek to confirm his findings by a standard laboratory test; mostly he was using a modified German electrical diagnostic method developed by Dr. Voll, for which he could not explain the basic principles.

Therefore, Dr. Omura told him he was misrepresenting the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and discrediting Dr. Omura’s work, and Dr. Omura supported the Medical Practitioner’s Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand's effort to remove Dr. Gorringe’s license. The Tribunal never requested Dr. Omura to appear for the hearing because they had already determined that Dr. Gorringe’s method of using the so-called Bi-Digital O-Ring Test differed from Dr. Omura’s method, as quoted in paragraph 290 above.

In conclusion, the above partial quotation '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity' does not apply to Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and it's use misrepresents the conclusion of the Tribunal.

Because the Medical Practitioner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand found Dr. Gorringe’s method is different from Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, none of the conclusions of the Tribunal or opinions of the expert witnesses relative to Dr. Gorringe's method apply to Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and will therefore be removed as unsourced or poorly sourced negative material according to Wikipedia's clear policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons quoted above.

Certification. These statements are inserted as a major edit in the talk pages of Dr. Omura's article by a serious student and supporter of Dr. Omura since January 2000. As I became acquainted with Dr. Omura, M.D. (Yokohama City University, with internship at Toyoko University Hospital, Tokyo), Sc.D. (in Pharmaco-Electrophysiology of Single Cardiac Cells, Columbia University, New York), I realized his far-reaching expertise was rooted in a strong academic background involving an unusual combination of fields including experimental physics (B.S. in Applied Physics, Waseda University, Tokyo--the founder of the SONY Corporation graduated from the same Engineering School--and three years in Graduate Experimental Physics, non-matriculated, Columbia University), medical electronics (Research Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Manhattan College, where he introduced the first course in Biomedical Electronics), and basic and clinical medicine (Research Fellow in Cardiovascular Surgery, and Residency at the Cancer Research Hospital, Columbia University) from both Western and Oriental perspectives (several teaching and research Professorship appointments at various universities in Japan and the U.S.).

In addition, because of my own positive experience and the spectacular results I witnessed over the years on difficult patients brought by their physicians during seminars and workshops, as well as observing Dr. Omura's relentless dedication to his research and the exciting progress in his application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, I volunteered to assist Dr. Omura several days each month during his seminars and workshops as well as in writings such as this to clarify his work, since 2005.

I have now spent many long days (often working day and night until close to sunrise) and untold hours with him doing research, documentation, clarification, teaching, and especially clinical application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. I hereby testify under penalty of perjury I have repeatedly seen and heard amazing, yes almost unbelievable clinical results--documented whenever feasible by standard laboratory tests such as X-ray, MRI, blood chemistries, etc.--both initially and during follow-up visits of various severe conditions often beyond the reach of conventional medicine and dentistry, in my opinion.

The hallmark of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test performed by physicians well trained by Dr. Omura is the early non-invasive diagnosis of medical conditions and their safe and effective treatment. Such diagnosis is often achieved within 30 minutes, and often long before any known laboratory test can detect any abnormality or malignancy. It can involve both asymptomatic or unmanageable conditions. Moreover, it can save or prolong lives, because safe optimal doses of effective medicines can be determined and administered quickly, and by special methods delivered directly to the areas of need, avoiding side effects. Such precise non-toxic effective treatment customized to each individual can achieve amazing results in minutes, hours, or days depending on the pathogenic factors unique to each individual. Through virtual drug testing, another important benefit and application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, harmful drug interactions, allergies, and toxic doses can be detected and avoided without ever exposing people or animals to any potentially offensive substances.

Such effective diagnosis and treatment, the reader may agree, redefines the standard of both conventional and alternative medicine, and does sound too good to be true. That is the reason I have spent my time and effort to investigate the premises, claims, and methods of Dr. Omura and his Bi-Digital O-Ring Test since January 2000, both for myself and my patients, and have found them to be true and effective, as almost unbelievable as they are. The famous founder of SONY, Mr. Masaru Ibuka, having studied and evaluated the validity and application of Dr. Omura's Bi- Digital O-Ring Test with his close associates, was so satisfied with what he found he served as the honorary President of the Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society, described Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in his autobiography, and stated publicly, "The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is a necessary tool for the paradigm shift from 20th century medicine to 21st century medicine."

The content of this edit is based on direct communication with Dr. Omura (a verifiable source) as well as my personal knowledge and experience of using Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which when used correctly as taught by Dr. Omura has great potential merit in my opinion, as indicated above. I certify under penalty of perjury that every statement I have made in this edit is true and complete to the best of my diligent investigation, knowledge and belief. I further certify under penalty of perjury that every statement I will remove from this article or its talk pages according to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons, is irrelevant, invalid, dishonest, preposterous, false or misleading negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, having little or no foundation, to the best of my diligent investigation, knowledge and belief, so help me God. Signed on September 4,2006 Telomere+