Talk:BDORT/Mediation/Quackwatch

Quackwatch

a) Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant. SEE FOR MEDIATION OUTCOME: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Yoshiaki_Omura/MediationArchive_1

I disagree, cant see the reason to repeat; shakes my faith in this from the outset; but I will go along with it. OK, so the quackwatch citation: it does not mention the description "quackery" or "pseudoscience" directly related to BDORT - therefore it is not a relevant citation at all. All sentences that refer, derive, cite it should be deleted. Since we should only use information based on agreed reliable sources, the See Also section labelling the BDORT should also be deleted. Its historically Arcsincostan's notion to make this entry an example of what he believes this is - pseudoscience. But there is no reference for this whatsoever, and it is merely opinion. Why not add "science" as a see also too? Labelling without a citation is not on at all. Categorizing in this manner is also not on at all. Unless there is a citation that directly uses this word in refutation of the tens of MDS/PhDs that publish on BDORT (some very emininent) any even indirect mention of it is purely POV. EVERYTHING has to be citated. Richardmalter 11:46, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
- Don't you think it would be closer to OR than POV? 'Pseudoscience' has a pretty clear definition, but if no one has published a source using the term in conjunction with BDORT, then isn't applying the term personally OR? - Che Nuevara 17:26, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, if we are starting to discuss this issue, let me make a couple of points. First, I agree with Richard (as I always have) that categorizing this article as pseudoscience per se is incorrect. I personally believe that 'pseudoscience' should go into the 'See also', as it is mentioned in the NZT report, which could be understood to allege or imply that BDORT is pseudoscience (we can go into that separately later). If there is such an allegation or implication, by a respectable source, in my opinion we should include the entry in the 'See also' for the reader to educate him/herself on the issue so as to be able to form his/her own opinion. Similary for quackery. We have a fairly prominent Web site (perhaps the most notable in the world for quackery watching) alleging that BDORT is quackery (just being listed in this site is already a form of implicit allegation). Hence, here too I believe if there is doubt being cast, let the reader find out from us what quackery is (in the See also) if so inclined, and let him/her form their own opinion on the matter. Again, I don't feel that casting the article as pseudoscience or quackery category is appropriate, but a 'See also' inclusion is the correct way to let the reader inform him/self and decide on his/her own. Crum375 17:54, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But do you agree that the Quackwatch page doesn't actually say any of this? - Che Nuevara 18:32, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am referring to this which is linked to this article , which refers to the same Gorringe case we are citing in our article. Quoting fromt the QuackWatch article:

The test Gorringe used is called peak muscle resistance testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as bi digital O ring testing (BDORT) -- in which the practitioner observes whether the subject's opposed thumb and fourth fingers can be pulled apart before and after the patient is exposed to various substances. Proponents claim that "weakness" of the fingers means that the person is having a problem with the test substance. ... The muscle test, of course, has no scientific basis and has never been validated. Moreover, the idea that contact with substances in sealed vials can affect the body is preposterous, and so is the idea that [the patient] would be tested having her touch her mother while her mother held the vials.

The article continues on to describe how Gorringe was subsequently fined and stripped of his license. The QuackWatch site has this prominent banner on top: "QuackWatch - Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions". I believe that a reasonable person reading this reference can conclude that QuackWatch is implying or alleging quackery on the part of Gorringe, and through him on BDORT as a medical technique. What I am saying is that if there is implication or allegation of quackery, then we should let the reader be informed on what the term means, so they can judge for themselves. I agree that WP should not opine on the matter, but it can and should provide the reader with wiki-linked information to understand the terminology. Crum375 19:12, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify if this is not already clear, I am referring to NZT for pseudoscience reference, and to QuackWatch for quackery reference. Crum375 19:22, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So you're proposing using the link you've pointed out instead of the one cited on the page? - Che Nuevara 19:51, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would use whatever gives the reader the most information. What I have done up to now with QuackWatch is simply search for 'BDORT' on the main page - that's how I got the cite above. Crum375 20:06, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The point that Richard is making is that the article currently cited isn't even about BDORT. If you'd like to propose another one, we can do that at a later time (it doesn't make sense to me to discuss two different unrelated articles at once, even if they are from the same host). The real question is, do you agree with his assessment of the QW article currently cited in our article? - Che Nuevara 20:59, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the currently cited QW page does not represent all the BDORT related material available on the QW site. So for simplicity let's just assume for now a combination of the one currently in the article plus the one that I cited, which is what you get if you just go to www.quackwatch.org, enter 'BDORT' in the search field, and follow the links. Obviously we could get an admin to add this link for us into the article, but I don't think it's critical at this time. Crum375 21:08, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another clarification, a couple of points. First, the citation in the article was done by another editor (Arc). I considered it only as a 'place holder' for QW, as the article is still incomplete (this is in fact one of the 'minor issues' that I referred to above that needed improvement IMO). Second, Richard's point above has to do with the rationale for the 'See also' section having a wikilink to quackery and pseudoscience, and my response here is specifically addressed to his points that we have no source to justify that See also section. Hopefully this is clearer. Crum375 21:58, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's clearer, but it doesn't answer the question. The question is, Do you agree that the currently cited article isn't actually about BDORT? Because if it's not about BDORT, then reason dictates it shouldn't really be on this page, right? - Che Nuevara 22:10, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The cited QW article is not directly about BDORT, but does mention it as "the O-Ring test or the Omura test" and goes on to mention Omura (which is the subject of this article). The QW article says that BDORT is used to validate the bracelet, which is the primary subject of the QW article. The QW article then links into this BDORT site. So no, this is not directly about BDORT, but it does mention that BDORT is used to validate the subject bracelet, and does provide a link to BDORT for further reading. But as I mentioned above, though this QW article would be acceptable as a more general reference to our Omura/BODRT article, I think we should also include the main BDORT entry on the QW site.

Crum375, now I understand why you did not agree to just start from where we left on in Mediation. The cited article does not label the BDORT directly as either of these terms. That is the end of the discussion re it as far as I am concerned and all the others in the Mediation also agreed. You then quote the other site that describes PMRT and BDORT as the same thing. You know that the Tribunial noted word for word that they rcognized that what Gorringe was practicing does not resemble Omura's BDORT and so does not assist them at all. We have gone over this repeatedly. In summary, no direct citation: no entry. Re the See Also, this is just another way of trying to say the same thing. It doesn't wash. I know you have the good intention of warning the world of your perceived dangers in the use of the BDORT, as you wrote to Addhoc on his talk page, but WP is not for that purpose. It is an encyclopedia. Richardmalter 22:47, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Richard, my primary mission here is to write (or otherwise ensure) good WP articles. If it happens to help people in various ways, I see that as a beneficial side effect. In the case of BDORT/Omura, all I really want, as for all WP articles, is to have a well written, properly sourced and balanced article. I have no other agenda. Crum375 23:15, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'm a little surprised that this citation is so quickly becoming such a big deal. It seems pretty clear to me that a page not about BDORT should be an easy case, no? The page that you (Crum) brought up aside, the simple question is, is the QW page currently cited relevant? - Che Nuevara 23:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The current QW article is relevant to BDORT and Omura. It is not a direct support for the need to clarify 'pseudoscience' and/or 'quackery'. For that we have the other QW article and the NZT. But the current QW article is still relevant to the Omura/BDORT article in general, per my explanation above. Crum375 23:19, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just to clarify for Che, here[1] is my awful message to AddHoc, where according to Richard I show my true POV colors as a crazed anti-BDORT advocate:

Addhoc , thank you for your well-meaning efforts at that article. Although I disagree on technical grounds with many of your changes, it may be good to you to get involved with the article and learn about it, so I will postpone my comments and refrain from reverting you for now.
If you are truly committed to spend the countless hours defending WP's NPOV against an admitted advocate of BDORT, who sells it for a living, despite the procedure (and related techniques) being declared '...irresponsible and unacceptable' by a Medical Disciplinary Review Board in NZ, please carry on.
Be aware however, that the advocates, of which we have seen several, will persist until the article will look their way. When they are done, it will say that BDORT is a wonderful technique, that can diagnose and heal most diseases, from the common cold to cancer, and has simply not been appreciated by mainstream medicine. Be also aware that there are people out there, potential WP readers, who will rely on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses and treatments, as was the case in NZ, with possible dire consequences.
It is clearly not WP's role to perform any WP:OR, and we must only present WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But under persistent daily barrage and pressure of the BDORT advocates, the article can gradually erode, as well meaning editors, such as yourself, may not have the same willingness to devote the needed hours per day, every day, to it to defend against the professional advocates, who will persist indefinitely, as their livelihoods clearly depend on it.
Again, I will let you try this out for a while to get the feel of the situation and decide if you wish in fact to commit the needed long term resources to it. Thanks, Crum375 11:29, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for reading, Crum375 23:39, 3 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whoa, please take a step back. Nobody is saying that you are a "crazed advocate" or that your message was "awful". What you say in that message does express your opinion of the matter pretty clearly, even if you don't say it explicitly. But Richard did not say what you seem to be attributing to him; please remember to continue assuming good faith.

I regards to the currently cited article, if you believe it is relevant, please demonstrate how. Remember, this article is technically about Omura and not BDORT. - Che Nuevara 00:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I only pasted the copy here to make sure anyone who reads this discussion knows my position and motivation also. As far as the current QW article, I don't see how it does not belong to the Omura article in general. First, the current Omura article is the historical merge of BDORT and Omura. Second, the AfD 'keep' was predicated on the fact that Omura wouldn't be notable without his claim-to-fame BDORT invention, hence BDORT figures prominently in the article. Hence any reference that sheds more light on BDORT and related controversies is relevant, IMO. BTW, the current QW article does mention both Omura and BDORT. Crum375 00:26, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Insomuch as it mentions both of them, yes. But isn't it true that the article is about the QT Q-Ring bracelet? The Q-Ring bracelet does not rely on BDORT; it only claims that BDORT proves its effectiveness. The refutation from QW is that the results of the BDORT test with respect to the Q-Ring bracelet are probably psychosomatic. Isn't it true that tried-and-true proven medical tests can also return results that are the result of psychosomatic effects and not of actual medical effects? So what does that actually say about BDORT? - Che Nuevara 00:33, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che, you have to understand that we don't have a lot of references of any kind about BDORT/Omura, ignoring those from BDORT/Omura related sites and a few others that I am sure we'll get to bash around soon. So this reference that talks about a use of BDORT and mentions Omura as its inventor is important even if it said almost nothing except mention them. In this case, I also understand that BDORT is claimed by the bracelet maker to be a 'proof' for its efficacy. That is all that I would take out of this reference - Omura is mentioned, BDORT is mentioned, and BDORT is claimed by the bracelet maker to validate its product. I think this is a reasonable bit of information for someone reading about BDORT and Omura. I am not saying this is where we get the pseudoscience or quackery allegations. All I am saying is that this reference can add some information to the BDORT/Omura article. Crum375 00:56, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

So your suggestion, Crum, is that this reference be included only to validate the statement that QT Inc claims that BDORT proves the effectiveness of its bracelet? Richard, what do you say to that? - Che Nuevara 01:10, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Che, first I did not reply to your point above; yes I think more correct that what I describe is OR than POV, as you note. Next. Well, in my opinion this is a very trival bit of information that Crum375 wants to include in the article; however I do not object to it - it is citated and some people might think it is tremendously important I suppose - so long as it says only what it says and no OR. So to reiterate what Che has stated and clarify 100%: this reference is to be used only and solely to say that "a company by the name of QT Inc claims that the BDORT proves the effectiveness of its braclet" (or some minor word change - but no other information whatsoever). OK, fine. But I do not think that this bit of information should go in the leading paragraph - surely it is not really essentially something that gives an overview of what the article is about. It can go in somewhere lower down. Agree to this - but only narrowly as Che points out, yes. Also need to note that we can define "lot of references" as we please - but in point of fact we have about 10 listed below that specifically are about the BDORT. Richardmalter 12:36, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Richard here - I agree that this specific 'bracelet' QW article should only be used to support that BDORT was used to validate the efficacy of a bracelet, and I also agree that at this point it does not belong in the lead. OTOH, I think the main QW BDORT article which I cited above is more relevant to BDORT and hence Omura as a whole, and should replace the bracelet reference in the lead. I propose that either we switch to discussing the main BDORT QW article here, or alternatively postpone it for later, with the understanding that it has some potentially important implications on a lot of our discussion. I leave it to you (Che, Richard) to decide how to proceed. Thanks, Crum375 12:57, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Great! Let's stick a fork in that issue, cuz it's done. I would recommend discussing the other QW citation later, as it's likely to be more complicated. For now we'll I'll make a note that the current QW citation is to be relegated to talking about the bracelet, which doesn't belong in the lead. Shall we move on? - Che Nuevara 17:13, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good. Well hopefully an even quicker one, the Dominic Lu citation - see mediation archives again please; can we dismiss this one altogether? I think so.Richardmalter 22:40, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]