Talk:Yoshiaki Omura
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
Yoshiaki Omura has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article. |
 |
Yoshiaki Omura is part of WikiProject Japan, a project to improve all Japan-related articles. If you would like to help improve this and other Japan-related articles, please join the project. All interested editors are welcome. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. |
| Low | This article has been rated as Low-importance for this Project's importance scale. |
|
Japan To-do:
|
|
 |
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page. | ||
| B | This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale. [FAQ] (If you rated the article, please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.) |
||
 |
An appropriate infobox may need to be added to this article, or the current infobox may need to be updated. Please refer to the list of biography infoboxes for further information. |
 |
This page was previously nominated for deletion.
Please see prior discussion(s) before even considering re-nomination:
|
 Archives |
|---|
|
Issues brought up by RM
I will respond to the key issues Richardmalter brings up:
- Saying "the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s variant and derivative treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body" is not WP:OR - it's simply a summary of the currently the available references. We also have the Quackwatch article, which is a secondary source, that for its BDORT entry only mentions the NZT 1 and 2 reports. If another reference of an evaluation by a mainstream body turns up, we'll gladly include it.
- The NZT is charged with analyzing and evaluating the evidence brought before it. Whether it is qualified for its job is determined by the NZ government, not by WP
- That 'only Omura knows for sure what BDORT is, and Gorringe wasn't really using BDORT' (paraphrasing) is an OR opinion. All we can do is summarize our acceptable sources, and the NZT specifically calls it BDORT numerous times in its first report, and exclusively so in its second report, in the case of the patient death
Hopefully this addresses Richardmalter's main concerns. Thanks, Crum375 14:08, 31 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Crum, no I dont think that does for the reasons I outline at all; its just not as rigorous to WP policies as other sections you have edited - nowhere near so; ideally we would have more editors here. Also can you comment on the disclaimers please, why you want them in WP terms, thanks?Richardmalter 00:41, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- The disclaimers are needed IMO per sub-section since the casual reader may only read a part of the article and may not see a diclaimer in one specific spot. Also, the issues that are being 'disclaimed' are different, so it doesn't make sense to have a global disclaimer that says, effectively, "nothing mentioned in this article has been evaluated or validated by mainstream medicine", as that would not be strictly true for every single item, plus the NZT did examine BDORT. So it makes sense to keep the disclaimers within their applicable sub-sections where it's clear what they are referring to. Crum375 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Why do you want disclaimers at all? By which WP policies are they there?Richardmalter 06:47, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- There is a WP policy that says we cannot present 'fringe theories' at all, except in their own article, when they have sufficient verifiable notability. Once such a theory is presented, it must be balanced with other prevailing views according to the 'due weight' requirement, which means that a reader must always understand where the theory stands relative to mainstream view. In this BDORT case, it is in its own article so we can mention it, although it is clearly (IMO anyway) a fringe theory, but we must balance the presentation of any claim against the mainstream views. So if we say, for example: "Omura says that Special Papers soak sunlight and acquire healing properties", we can't just leave it that way, because it would violate the undue weight requirement by presenting Omura's claim unchallenged and without mainstream view of it. If we had some reliable mainstream sources, ideally secondary, that evaluated Special Papers, we could just summarize what they say, but we have none. So, the way we deal with that lack of sourcing is simply noting what Omura says, followed by a comment that we are not aware of any mainstream source that evaluated his claim or supports it. Again, if we left that comment out, we'd be violating undue weight. And that proper neutral balance must be maintained anywhere in the article where we mention such a claim. Thanks, Crum375 12:37, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
New version for BDORT
I am trying a new approach of focusing strictly on BDORT and leaving Omura as secondary. Please see BDORT. Thanks, Crum375 01:22, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Getting the lead in accurate
Crum, hello. All the points I mention above still need addressing. eg If we dont know as a fact that it is the only mainstream body - we cant say this. Please see that you would be very well saying the same thing if I was proposing such a speculative sentence. Actually the whole passage needs a thorough rewrite:
in the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT') on his patients, was guilty of malpractice and the Tribunal found that "...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity:
The article says as follows, that the Tribunial ruled that:
reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognized diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible.
and again that
that Gorringe's reliance on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses led to the patient's death.
But we summarize thus:
n the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body' [WP:OR - we dont know this, it is speculation], the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT') on his patients, was guilty of malpractice and the Tribunal found that "...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity.
which jumbles it up. It needs to say, that:
The NZ Tribunial of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used PMRT (which they meant to include BDORT) to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses led to the patient's death and so he was stripped of his licence etc.
This is what they say. This is the reason given that we quote in both cases brought before the Tribunial. What we say so far says that (to paraphrase):
Gorringe used PMRT (lumped together with BDORT) and because of this was dismissed.
we dont explain correctly at all. Do you see that? we dont explain the actual reason, but we do strongly suggest that it was for using what was considered BDORT itself rather than in exclusion of. Lets just first get that accurate and consistent, OK? Then when we get the top bit right, we can adjust lower down accordingly too. Richardmalter 06:59, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- This important point, which means our article is quite inaccurate about what the Tribunial ruled, is confirmed here, in Para 292, Gorringe said and emphasized with bold text and underline in the Tribunal report to document that he did emphasize this:
Any diagnosis obtained with BDORT is presumptive, and must always be considered in the context of the presenting complaints in the history, and where possible, be checked with a standard laboratory test if one is available
ie, the Tribunal found him wanting in fulfilling his own stated understanding - that follow up standard tests must be applied to confirm BDORT/PMRT (admittedly confused in the trial) findings. This is why he lost his license - the Tribunal says this explicitly in both cases we report, in their words. This has to be ammended to make this perfectly clear.Richardmalter 09:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, you may want to take a look at BDORT, which is something I worked on as a suggested replacement for this entry, that will focus more on BDORT than YO. Let me know what you think. Thanks, Crum375 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Also, regarding your points above, I obviously disagree. I suggest however, as I did in the past, to focus on one point at a time. I'll take just one of your points then, the issue of PMRT vs. BDORT. In NZT2, where a patient died because of reliance on BDORT, PMRT is not mentioned at all, only BDORT. So we obviously can't use your proposed wording that Gorringe used 'PMRT', as that would be plainly incorrect. Crum375 14:45, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
How can you disagree that we need to say:
This is the reason given that we quote in both cases brought before the Tribunial. What we say so far says that (to paraphrase):
Gorringe used PMRT (lumped together with BDORT) and because of this was dismissed.
and we need to say in exclusion of standard tests etc in the Tribunial's words, which is what the Tribunial said in both cases. ANY other representation is misleading and incorrect - how can you object to this? Your BDORT is exactly the same.Richardmalter 20:21, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
There is also a clear BLP issue because we are saying incorrectly that Dr Omura's technique - even use of on its own - was ruled not OK - which breings incorrect and misleading disrepute to Dr Omura and his methods. We cant do that. Please change this straightaway. Thanks.Richardmalter 20:23, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
- Richard, I don't see why we should say that "Gorringe used PMRT" if NZT2 says he used BDORT, and the word PMRT is not mentioned at all in it. As far as the BLP issue, I don't see anywhere in the article any "unsourced or poorly sourced" information about anything or anyone. If you do, please let us know. Thanks, Crum375 20:43, 1 February 2007 (UTC)
Immediate deletion/ammendment of BLP defamatory material necessary
-
- I dont know how to make this any clearer, so all I can do is repeat:
in the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other of Omura’s variant and derivative treatments and techniques by a mainstream scientific or medical body, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT') on his patients, was guilty of malpractice
strongly suggests or actually, actually says that Dr Gorringe, used BDORT and was found guilty of malpractice for this reason. This is defamatory to Dr Gorringe also, because of para 292 where Gorringe emphasizes in his defence his understanding (and the Tribunial notes Gorringes' strong emphasis) that all BDORT findings must be confirmed by standard tests; and because he did not do this, the Tribunial dismissed him; they say this in both cases explicitly. But this sentence in the lead in describes him as being found guilty for just using BDORT (ignoring his other statements where he declares he knows he should not do this). But first of all, it is defamatory to Dr Omura for the same reasons: it says that a doctor was guilty of malpractice for using BDORT - which is seriously damaging to Dr Omura and is not what the tribunial actually said or ruled; the Tribunial ruled in both cases that because he used BDORT to the exclusion of standard confirming tests, he was 'guilty' of malpractice. But currently it says that just for using BDORT Gorringe was dismissed - which implies to the whole world that doctors should not and/or will be found guilty of malpractice for using BDORT - and since Omura is the developer of this technique - it is seriously damaging to him (because it is totally inaccurate).
This is double BLP serious defamatory statements, and must be ammended immediately viz WP BLP policies, aggressively, if necessary. If you do not delete or modify this, I will, and/or ask for immediate Admin intervention. This is an absolutely no joking matter. If you want to discuss, we can after' it is ammended - re WP policies. I will not tolerate any more real life harm being done to reputation or otherwise. Please ammend in good faith, immediately. Thanks. Richardmalter 09:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
- We have 3 main sources that describe the Gorringe cases: NZT1, NZT2 and the summarizing (secondary source) Quackwatch article.[1][2][3] I invite any interested neutral parties to read these sources fully and carefully and then decide if the current article's wording is reasonable. I would be more than happy to consider other suggested wordings that properly and neutrally reflect the sources that we have. Thanks, Crum375 10:06, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
Redirection
I have redirected this entry to BDORT, which is essentially the same, but focuses on the BDORT procedure, with a separate section for Yoshiaki Omura. I removed the General Motors lawsuit in the process, as I think it becomes less notable and pertinent in the move. Also Dr. Omura's personal details were removed since the article is now focused on BDORT. Crum375 03:28, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
