Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Contents 1 Comment merged from older Talk:Yoshiaki Omura prior to merge 2 First comments 3 Please clarify 4 Organ tissue 5 Selection of Published scientific papers 6 Question 7 AND, the world is FLAT ! 8 Comment 9 Reply by --RichardMalter 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) and CURRENT SUMMARY OF EDIT DISPUTE please do not edit this comment 10 Comment 11 Policies 12 Comment 13 Third-party sources 13.1 Comment on Third-party sources 13.2 Shinnick 14 Professor Mark Bryden Cannell 15 Evident New Omura BDORT-Related Patent Application – Special Solar Energy Stored Paper 16 Richard Malter's comments/replies 17 About the merges 18 Question re Background section 19 Pseudoscience Claims 20 Message to RichardMalter 21 Clarifying where there is POV in this article 22 One good example of mainstream medical publication 23 Evaluating "BDORT has not been accepted by the mainstream community" 24 Unilateral change to not been accepted in article 25 Sartor Resartus Redux

Comment merged from older Talk:Yoshiaki Omura prior to merge

The following comment by RichardMalter (talk • contribs) was the only comment on this page, prior to the move-and merge from Talk:Bi-Digital O-Ring Test -- Karada 12:05, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Have ammended this page with two criteria: 1) all clear POV/bias edited out, 2) any info that is duplicated on Bi-Digital O-Ring Test(BDORT) removed as measure for efficient use of space. Basis of (1) is discussion on Talk page of BDORT. --RichardMalter 13:53, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

First comments

Completely absurd article. Somewhat high in ghits, but I propose that it is still non-notable. A variety of ghits are on absurd patent sites. No real verifiable sources, mostly questionable papers, and some suspect sources - why is the clinic on the website of some random ISP instead of the hospital website. Also, searching on google for the award mentioned gives only two hits, one of which is to the baobab site. Philosophus ^T 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

After looking at early revisions of this article, I have decided to remain neutral on this, as it seems to be more notable than I had thought. --Philosophus ^T 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

If no one objects, I would like to withdraw this nomination. The early revision that I have reverted to does a better job at asserting notability, following NPOV, and citing reputable sources. --Philosophus ^T 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
• Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - Richardcavell 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
• Comment – As the original creator of the article I would simply point out that the article as originally created, however imperfect, would seem to meet Wiki criteria. So far as I can determine the alterations/additions which prompted the nomination for deletion were made by a proponent, and that their insupportability speaks for itself. I'm a comparative newcomer to this process, so please pardon any infelicities on my part. Fucyfre 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly stands up to Wikipedia criteria. There is no original/new research: the article refers to and points to in the external links already published research. The research mentioned is also by reputable sources - they are medical doctors, scientist etc all with the standard doctoral or medical doctor qualifications. The idea expressed here that the information or that the Test itself is unscientific is flatly incorrect. The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc. The claim of "pseudoscience" itself needs to be examined. Are any of the commentators here scientifically trained to Ph.D level? especially regarding electromagnetism? The BDORT deals with electromagnetic phenomena. This is a neglected paradigm in orthodox western medicine, but not among all doctors, which is a key point. See for example the many presentations by US doctors, scientists etc at Google: Whole Person Healing Summit. In other words, to say that it has no scientific value etc, is an opinion, that is, it is non-neutral. Are the commentators here seriously claiming to be able to refute the many published research papers of around 50 recognized scientists/doctors around the world?! On what basis is this credible? It is of course not. This is an absurd idea. The original author of this page obviously, as with some of the other contributors to the page, does not 'like' the BDORT. But that is not sufficient. You cannot call it names because of that. They are giving their opinion throughout their text - which is not Wikipedia practice. Their comments are therefore very biased indeed. When I simply added further information, as for example in the case of the NZ doctor, rather than deleting the existing text, my additions - which were extra information about the subject - were deleted. This outrightly violates Wikipedia policy. This needs to be 100% clear. What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors. On that insufficient basis, the different Wikipedia criteria are being sited, but erroneously as I have explained. Phrases like "and that their insupportability speaks for itself" sounds impressive, but are not substantiated in any way given. Regarding my non-neutrality, I am of course an advocate of the BDORT. But I have aimed in my last big rewrite to only include information, facts, figures etc. If people wish to improve on the neutrality of the information I have written, then please do, but please also note, that that does not equate to deleting information - which is the basis of what an encyclopedia is for. ---- RichardMalter

• Comment As you will note a RfD of this article was made, and a discussion has ensued. Presumably a consensus will in time emerge.

I would note that a Google search indicates that a Richard Malter is an active proponent of the BDORT as well as other ‘alternative’ approaches. These speak for themselves and require no characterization on my part. I would note that the characterization of the testimony of the scientific and medical authorities before the Medical Practioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand as provided by Richard Malter is factually incorrect. Malter indicates of the commission’s hearings in his edit of the original BDORT entry (since reverted) that ‘The Tribunal also noted that Richard Gorringe was not using the BDORT in the accepted correct way.’ In point of fact, as a reading of the commission’s report, as linked to, indicates, the commission explicitly chose to treat the distinction between BDORT and PMRT, which Richard Malter asserts it as having made, as nonexistant. See, eg, p 25, paragraph 100, which reads, in its entirety, ‘At each consultation Dr Gorringe ‘’muscle tested’’ Mrs Short by a procedure called ‘’Peak Muscle Resistance Training’’ which he used as a diagnostic tool. We refer to this procedure later and throughout this judgement as PMRT. It is also referred to as the Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT).’ Further, Professor Cannell, heard as expert witness by the commission, and with whose evidence and conclusions the commissions in its rulings explicitly and officially agreed, stated, as summarized by the commission in its official ruling on p 63, paragraphs 305, that, ‘Professor Cannell referred to some 14 references in the literature which examined scientifically whether there was any reliability in applied kinesiology (AK) methods, which include PMRT or BDORT. He stated that none of those studies reached the conclusion that PMRT was a reliable diagnostic technique.’ Professor Cannel is further quoted in the commission report as stating that, ‘In summary I find the descriptions of the AK [applied kinesiology] methods and in particular the BDORT test to be inconsistent with known physical principles. Even if it were possible to create a “field” with these methods, AK [applied kinesiology] methods and (BDORTing) [testing] have not been shown to produce an electrical field which is required to alter the electrical activation of nerve and muscle. A limited survey of the literature shows that the AK [applied kinesiology] testing results are unreliable – and this idea is apparently supported by some organizations that support complementary medicine. I find it deeply disturbing that the only people who seem to claim reliable diagnostic results are those who make a living from applying it some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.’ It should be noted that this testimony was not merely offered before the committee but was judged by the committee in its final judgement to be, in fact, the judgement of the committee.

I am unaware of any objective, scientific, double-blind, peer-reviewed support for the claims of the proponents of the BDORT and I am also unaware of any such objective, scientific, peer-review having ever been sought by Dr Omura. If such exist, as opposed to patent advocacy, partisan, non-objective, non double-blinded, utterly unfounded in other-than anecdotalism and blind faith, let them be cited. A claim to scientific validity without subjecting of the claims to falsifiable, objective review, is by definition pseudo-science. Fucyfre

• Keep - This article exposes another form of quackery and pseudoscience and thus serves a valuable function. This is just another variation of Applied kinesiology, a chiropractic technique used by many practitioners of so-Called "Alternative" Medicine (sCAM). -- Fyslee 04:35, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply "the commission explicitly chose to treat the distinction between BDORT and PMRT as non-existent" is a fact about the Tribunial proceedings and perspective, not about the BDORT. This is a confusion of topic on Fucyfre's part. The fact that Gorringe used the BDORT incorrectly (he should have used the Indirect BDORT method if the patient could not for any reason be tested directly) in fact makes the Tribunial decision not about the BDORT but about Gorringe. To focus on the case of Gorringe is therefore useless to this discussion. Of course it will serve the bias of someone who does not agree for whatever reason with the BDORT. Omura and other researchers of the BDORT have carried out peer-reviewed, scientific method, double and sometimes triple blinded research and experiments. If you have not read these papers it does not equate to that they do not exist. You are making an unfounded statement: I suggest you spend some more time reviewing the documentation available. You obviously have a bias against anything that is not mainstream medicine, it is against Wikipedia culture for you to invest your contributions to this page with your bias. Your comments about nerve and muscle appear to be based on ignorance (from Latin: not know]. I suggest you read James Oshman PhD on the internet re the 'living matrix', and Yoshio Manaka Ph.D MD, Chasing The Dragon's Tail as a good starting place. You are thinking in a reductionist cartesian mechanistic paradigm and so missing much of how things happen: see also Bruce Lipton Ph.D The Biology of Belief for some up-to-date biology regarding electromagnetism, and Becker - The Body Electric. Otherwise you are making comments on limited information. --RichardMalter
Here is a peer reviewed triple blinded study by Dr Phillip Shinnick et al Director of the Research Institue of Global Physiology, Behaviour & Treatment, Inc, published in the US medicalacupuncture journal. http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method "identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry" - the methodology of the research of the BDORT follows all the features explained. This should now end the discussion of scientificness.

Please clarify

After detailing the thing with the finger and thumb, I was confused by the following sentence: "By thus assessing the differing level of strength diagnosis is made, eg, by shining a laser pointer at the appropriate acupuncture point, judging the level of acetylcholine present in the patient's brain."

This seems like a non-sequitur to me. Is this technique about assessing the strength of the patients fingers in different conditions or is it about shining lasers at acupuncture points?

I think either it means it is in some way analogous to this other alternative medicine technique, or it means you can test the finger strength while stimulating the acupuncture point but I'm not sure. --Spondoolicks 14:45, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I think, to, in effect repeat myself, that the essential madness of the advocates of this methodology speaks for itself. – Spondoolicks, point taken. I haven't time free at the moment, but if there is consensual agreement I will attempt to clarify the description you found problematic. I have, by chance, some non-trivial familiarity with the madness of the BDORT and its adherents, and perhaps I may put it to some use. Fucyfre 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• • I've edited it myself - I think I got the right idea but please check. --Spondoolicks 15:37, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Organ tissue

The abstract of the patent:

• A method of imaging an internal organ of a patient for purposes of medical diagnosis, where a patient forms an O-ring shape with one of hands by placing the fingertips of his thumb and one of his remaining fingers together and a sample of tissue of an internal organ is placed on the patient's other hand, and the patient's internal organ is non-invasively externally probed with a probing instrument. The internal organ is the same type of organ as that of the sample. Simultaneously a tester attempts to pull apart the O-ring shape by means of the tester placing his thumb and one of the remaining fingers of each of his hands within the O-ring shape of the patient to form interlocking O-rings and pulling the thumb and the finger of the patient apart due to an electromagnetic field of the tissue of the sample interacting with an electromagnetic field of the internal organ being probed and this interaction is detected by the ability to pull apart the O-ring shape thereby permitting imaging of the boundaries of the internal organ being probed.[1]

Clearly indicates that organ tissue is an integral component of the test. Are there variations on the test that are verifiable? The patent doesn't mention medicines or lasers. -Will Beback 17:19, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment You got the right idea with respect to what's available in the patent, per se, but Omura's papers and practice claim infinitely more for the BDORT than simply that. I am, as I've indicated, by chance, particularly familiar with this. If there's no objection I'll extend the entry to Omura's actual claims and applications a bit later today, when I have time to sit down with it. They will be externally verifiable as to Omura's claims in that they are thoroughly if not exhaustively available in the journal he runs, and also to a considerable degree on his website, which is cited. Omura is the chief architect of both the Japanese BDORT society and the US/New York incarnation which he runs from his apartment. As I say, I am familiar with this matter. I intend, however, only to make objective, verifiable observations in the entry which will withstand objective review and community insight/modification. Fucyfre 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You are expanding a bit overzealously. Why don't you consider consolidating the claims in the article in order to make it more readable? --Philosophus ^T 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT I am a research scientist asked to commment on the Bi-digital O-ring test by a group of scientist since I published on this phenomenon in two article published in the American Journal of Acupuncture and Medical Acupuncture and did a 300 patient double blind study in the 80's. I worked with Dr. Omura for eight years and have been assistant professor at New York Medical College for six years. I now director a research institute. I am completiing a book on this as an independent anlysis since I have not worked with Omura since 1990. It has great benefit to medicine and science which I will discuss when my work is published which has taken almost eight years. P.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.131.19.159 (talk • contribs) . the comment was added by the scientist i contacted to help with the discussion who was not familiar with Wikipedia websites and had diificulty navigating this page as he told me by email - i simply placed the comment in chronological order. RichardMalter It must be noted now that there is clearly not concensus on this topic, but two opposing approaches to it. The opposing parties may not continue as they like for eg deleting plain what, where when etc information i add to the topic if they do not want outrightly to breach Wikipedia protocols.

Thanks for your input. Published results can be used references for the article, but unpublished personal knowledge my not be used, per our "No original research" policy. Cheers, -Will Beback 00:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

REPLY http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html - this scientist is refering to published results, as just one example; there are very numerous others published (on the net). You are ignoring these facts. You or anyone else have not replied to my earlier comments either. Furthermore when I did use such as references in the article revision, they were deleted, this is again antiWikipedia policy as you yourself infer. RichardMalter

This is not a reliable and reputable source in science and medicine. See WP:RS, for example, but that guideline doesn't give a very good explanation and is highly lacking in situations like this. WP:NOR does not mean we must present something as correct just because no one bothers to refute it in a reputable source. --Philosophus ^T 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Selection of Published scientific papers

by many medicial doctors/scientists around the world, including Japan, USA, Scandanavia, other European counctires, South America, Ukraine, Russia, etc http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=7625244&dopt=Abstract
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12934957&dopt=Abstract
http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/MOHKI/4thSympoabst.htm
http://pfarber.sites.uol.com.br/atualizacao.htm
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1674834&dopt=Abstract
http://bdort.net/pdf/6thSympoEngAbst.pdf
http://bdort.net/en/abstracts.htm
http://bdort.net/en/2stinter.htm
http://www.ecim-europe.info/bdort/

The contributors on this page cannot rationally purport to be able to negate, ignore, refute etc all of these research papers - including the methodology of the papers/researchers - by the many physicians and scientists around the world. The BDORT therefore cannot rationally be termed pseudoscientific by them, since this is not the case and would clearly be incorrect information. Only personal opinion could suggest this. This should now end the debate about 'scientificness'. See also Scientific Method for this understanding. --RichardMalter 02:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I have checked every single 'independent' reference given above. Literally every single 'independent' reference is directly to Dr Omura or a close 'colleague.' Specifically, the first and most numerous references are to Dr Omura's own journal, which essentially consists of Dr Omura working from his apartment with a part time student assistant recruited by placing posters around the Columbia University campus area of Morningside Heights. I rather doubt these constitute a meaningful form of independent validation. The remaining 'independent' references are either to Dr Omura's annual conference for which he rents space within the School of International and Public Affair on the Columbia University campus each fall. It should be noted that while Dr Omura and his proponents are inclined to act as if this and other superficial 'associations' with Columbia constitute endorsement of the scientific validity of his 'researches' in point of fact SIPA is renting space to what has been represented to it as an international organization. It constitutes neither endorsement nor affiliation. If this point is doubted feel free to contact SIPA and enquire. The remaining 'independent' sources referenced in the list presented above by Richard Malter are simply to www.bdort.net, which is Omura's Japanese site. If this constitutes 'independent' endorsement then this notion of 'independence' similarly to the others, strains most rational or even quasi-rational definitions of the term. More to follow. Fucyfre 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Re: last comment

As a last comment about this now absurd discussion. Here is just one of the above research links, with the contributors listed. Do you not know that co-researchers tend to be colleagues?! The details of room rental is nothing to do with science. This is a list of scientists on at least 4 continents. What is your qualification to be able to dismiss them? I am not asking these questions rhetorically? What is your scientific degree? What independent research on this topic have you carried out? Where is it published? What were your findings? Did they refute some or all of the BDORT research finding? What were your control parameters in your experiments? Was your research peer reviewed? Have you read Scientific Method? If you are not able to present refuting research then you cannot suggust what you are purporting. I think if this continues we will have to go to arbitration etc.

-DominicP. Lu, DDS, FAGD, FRSH, FICD, FICAE, Cert. ORT-DDS (2 President, American Society for Advancement of Anesthesia in Dentistry Professor of Oral Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Chief, Division of Special Care in Dentistry, and Director of Medical and Dental Externship Education Department of Dental Medicine Lehigh Valley Hospital of Penn State University Medical College -SHIGEHARU Fukuda Ph.D.􀌍􀊣, YOSHINARI Honda2􀊣, TATSUYA Ishihara2􀊣, SHINPEI Ushio Ph.D. 2􀊣 ,KANSO Iwaki2 􀊣, MASAO Ikeda2 􀊣 , MASASHI Kurimoto Ph.D. 2􀊣, YASUHIRO Shimotsuura MD.,F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD(5DAN) 􀌏 ) , and YOSHIAKI Omura MD., Sc.D., F.I.C.A.E., FACA,FAAIM, FRSM 4) 1)Amase Institute and 2)Fujisaki Institute, Hayashibara Biochemical Laboratories Inc., Okayama - Chieko Hirobe Ph.D, Cert. ORT-Pharm(1 Dan) 1), Midori Furukawa M.D.,Ph.D2), Nobuko HoriuchiD.D.S.,Ph.D, F.I.C.A.E. Cert. ORT-DDS(2Dan) 3), Toshio Tanaka4), Motomu Ohki M.S., F.I.C.A.E.(Hon.) 5) Yasuhiro Shimotsuura M.D.F.I.C.A.E, Cert. ORT-MD(5Dan) 5)6) - Yuko KOYAMA D.D.S. Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan), Hiroshi FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan) Masataka SUNAGAWA D.D.S., Ph.D., Akira FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., F.L.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-DDS (3Dan) Fukuoak Dental Clinic Research Laboratory of Integrative Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) -Naoki Ohata,D.D.S.,Ph.D.,Cert.ORT-DDS(1 Keiko Ohata,D.D.S.,Cert.ORT-DDS(1 Dan) Ohata Dental Clinic, Tokyo, Japan -FUJIMAKI Goro D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS FUJIMAKI Kotaro D.D.S., Ph.D. Pastoral Dental Office, Tokyo, Japan -V. P. Lysenyuk, M.D., Sc.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (2 Dan) National Medical University, Kiev, Ukraine (e-mail: lysenyuk@i.com.ua) - T. I. Usichenko, M.D. University of Greifswald, Germany -Momir Dunjic, M.D., M.Sc., Medicine Pristina, Institute Yugoslav-BDORT Association. -Slobodan Dunjic, M.D., M.Sc., Milan Jevremovic, M.D., Ph. -Miodrag Stanisic, M.D., Department -Nenad Sulovic, M.D. M.Sc., University Clinical Center Belgrade. -Nemanja Milincic, M.D.,M.Sc., University Clinical Center, Belgrade. -Dusan Vesovic, M.D., PhD, Pharmaceutical Slavisa Stanisic, M.D, Ph.D., Front, Belgrade. -Dejan Radovanovic, M.D., Pharmaceutical Montenegro (Yugoslavia) - IWASA, S., M.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (2 Dan) Orthopaedic Surgeon; Director of Brazilian Medical Association of Acupuncture; Director of Brazilian Omura’s Test Research Center; President of “Fundação ACL” - Foundation for development of the self-accomplishment capacity, communication and leadership of individual - JOJIMA,T, MD, F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (2 Dan) Management of Jojima Medical Clinic; Former President of Brazilian Medical Association of Acupuncture; Director of Brazilian Omura’s Test Research Center - JOJIMA, A..T.T, MD, Surgeon; Specialist in Acupunture; Member of Brazilian Omura’s Test Research Center - Toru Abo M.D., Ph.D. Prof., Department f Immunology, Niigata University Scholl of Medicine, Niigata 951-8510, Japan -The Near Future of BSE, CJD, Prion Disease, Meat Hygiene and near future of Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Toshimitsu MATSUBARA, BSAgr., D.V.M., ORT-DVM (1Dan) Director, Veterinary Science Department, Tokyo General Laboratory Former Professor and Veterinarian, School of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University President of Veterinary Medical Society, Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society Certified Lead Researcher of the Japan Society for Laser Surgery and Medicine - Yoshiro Fujii D.D.S. , Ph.D. Shin Kobe Dental Clinic, Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture - Masataka SUNAGAWA D.D.S., Ph.D. Hiroshi FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan) Yuko KOYAMA D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan) Akira FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., F.L.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-DDS(3Dan) Fukuoka Dental Clinic Research Laboratory of Integrative Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) - Mituhiro Nishimura M.D., Ph. D., Cert. ORT-MD(1Dan)1) Yasuhiro Shimotsuura M.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD(5Dan) 1),2), Yoshiaki Omura M.D., Sc.D., F.A.C.A., F.I.C.A.E., F.A.A.I.M., F.R.S.M. 3) 1) ORT Life Science Research Institute, Kurume, Fukuoka 2) Shimotsuura Clinic, Kurume, Fukuoka 3) Director of Medical Research, Heart Disease Research Foundation, USA - Tokuo Taketani M.D., Ph.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (1Dan􀊣 􀊢Correspondence: Kurobe City Hospital FAX:+81-765-54-1022, taketani@med.kurobe.toyama.jp􀊣 - Heiichi Yano M.D., Ph.D.1), Chika Haryu,B.Sc. 2), Junko Ohkubo,D.D.S. 3) 1) Internal Medicine, Kashiwa Hospital, Jikei University School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan. 2) Division of Pharmacy, Institute of Total Life Aid, Ibaraki, Japan. 3) Ohkubo Dental Clinic,Ibaraki, Japan. - Koichi Kato M.D., Cert. ORT-MD (3 Dan), Daisuke Kato Onoda Hospital, Fukushima 􀊢Correspondence: Onoda Hospital􀀁 FAX􀉿0244􀊵22􀊵2125, e-mail:onodahp@pluto.plala.or.jp􀊣 - Hitoshi Ohzu, Prof. Emeritus, Waseda University, ( Dr.Techn. T. H. Wien) Director of the Institute for Laser Medicine. Neoark Co., Nakanocho, Hachiouji, Tokyo, E-mail: ohzu@neoark.co.jp http://bdort.net/pdf/6thSympoEngAbst.pdf --RichardMalter 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I will concede that I fail to grasp the relevance of an argument from authority to a purportedly scientific discussion. I will rest with Popper, Hansen, and Kuhn. Any arguments offered must stand or fall of their own weight. I am perfectly content to let the community evolve toward a reasoned judgement. Fucyfre 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Further Comment Dr Lu, incidentally, the DDS featured prominently in Richard Malter's most recent scientific cite, is the principal author of the following paper in whiich a successful experiment was 'scientifically' conducted to determine the application of BDORT as a diagnostic tool over long-distance telephone lines. [2] Fucyfre 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I will gradually add a lot more information to this page, which I will reference etc. There are currently a few technical inaccuracies and incomplete descriptions --RichardMalter 06:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

If you are referring to the article, please don't. It is already too long and confusing. Consider consolidating and cleaning up the article. Be aware, however, that removing critical pieces of NPOV, or making POV additions, will likely cause your edits to be reverted without discussion. --Philosophus ^T 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Is there an official guideline re length, please point me to it, thank you. Made changes, please see my summary note on History page.--RichardMalter 07:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus, please see my comments again in the history page. A speculative cause and effect statement (about why something is not this or that becuase of this or that) is 100% POV. There is no way this can be validated. You also deleted plain facts/figures info - this is 100% contrary to Wikipedia protocol and is unacceptable.--RichardMalter 07:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus: POV re pseudoscience has been noted by another contributor. You are ignoring POV re attribution of cause and effect in 2nd sentence. You may not do this viz Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia guidelines.--RichardMalter 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Pleases stop reverting - see WP:3RR. I don't know what you mean by "POV re pseudoscience has been noted by another contributor", but it doesn't override general consensus. If you look at this talk page, everyone who mentions pseudoscience, excepting you, supports the label. --Philosophus ^T 08:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I think RichardMalter is referring to this edit by me. I am now regretting making the edit summary quite so strongly worded. I just thought the facts spoke for themselves and didn't need editorialising - this is just my take on how encyclopedia articles should be which I know is different to others (e.g. 1906 Encyclopedia Brittannica articles are full of opinions mixed in with the facts) and in no way indicated that I think this is not pseudoscience. It quite clearly is and I think the categorisation of this article as pseudoscience is absolutely fine. --Spondoolicks 09:30, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

They may do so as this is their POV. When you can refute all the papers listed and linked to above and also the methodology then you can call it pseudo - . See discussion above re science or not. Please see NonNeutral idea. Please also note you may not delete neural fact/figures etc info. I have listed this page in the Alerts list for outside help. --RichardMalter 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Note I've just removed the defensive observation appended to the summary reference to the findings of the NZ authorities as the statement was not actually supported by the cite. The cite is simply a definition, on one of Omura's sites, of the 'indirect' method. The NZ authorities' report contains no such observation in any form. I'm thoroughly familiar with Omura's defense in re this matter that his sacrosanct guardianship of the correct application of the BDORT was violated. Indeed, Gorringe has attended Omura's seminars in New York since his censure by the NZ authorities, presumably to hone his 'correct' BDORT and other Omura-trained skills. Nonetheless, the simple fact is that this defenseive qualification is utterly unsupported by its cite. Fucyfre 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You have again deleted a factual statment. I am simply stating that Gorringe did not use the BDORT correctly, which you acknowledge; reading the report, and comparing with correct BDORT application, this fact is verified. What is more straightforward than that. Please stop deleting what you dont like. Re "pseudoscience", counting the research scientist that has contributed here, and myself, if you study the discussion and revision comments, there are 3 people that agree that "pseudoscience" is not appropriate. There is not consensus on this, which means you may not go ahead and write what you like. I undeleting what you have unlawfully deleted. --RichardMalter 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

re science discussion: no one here can rationally ignore the research work on 4 continents by doctors and scientists i have linked to here - and declare "pseudo - ". Only a very biased POV can give such a view (as has already been noted repeatedly). I have taken out the "claim" that the BDORT has been used around the world, on the basis that it has in fact. These scientist/doctor are real, they exist, they have and do use the BDORT, in the different parts of the world mentioned. Only a wild POV can declare these facts as a claim. Vandalism The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Your changes come under nonsense. If you continue I will report you for vandalism, which I will document to the Wikipedia community. --RichardMalter 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To Fucyfre: Thank you for your contributions to Wikipedia. As a member of the Wikipedia community, I would like to remind you of Wikipedia's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated (see above comments). In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Wikipedia. Thank you! --RichardMalter 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment I am aware that it is Omura's claim that the BDORT was inappropriately applied. Yours, however, is not my interpretation of the NZ commission's findings. Further, you will note that the NZ commission officially concluded, after consult with and testimony by independent experts, that the claims of BDORT, which it officially equated with Gorringe's application of what Gorringe termed as both BDORT and PMRT, were pseudoscientific, essentially nonsensical if not in fact magical, and that they had never in fact been subject to any positive evaluation by any independent, credible scientific form of evaluation. I am also aware that Omura was absolutely indifferent to the suffering of those who were treated. I am further aware that Omura is indifferent to outcomes for patients to the extent that he never troubles to follow up actual outcomes for patients if they do not again present at his seminars/clinics/workshops. If for example, a patient/subject presents at a session, is diagnosed and treatment prescribed, then appears at a second session and is diagnosed as having been cured of, eg, terminal cancer, then were never to again appear, perhaps having died, it would be represented in Omura's journal write up as a successful treatment, since the patient, having been diagnosed as cured never again was presented – and neither thought nor followup would ever occur in such an instance. It is a closed belief system, a faith, not subject to falsification, and essentially indifferent to outcome for patients save for those who are personal friends, in which Omura shields himself from the medical oversight authorities by having for many years not directly practiced on patients for payment but instead operates through his seminars/workshops in which physicians in attendance present the subject patients who are the subjects of the 'research' papers presented in Omura's journal. I am further aware that Omura has never, ever attempted to present his researches to what might be regarded as a standard, reputable, peer-reviewed publication of the likes of JAMA, or The Lancet. I have no interest in engaging in personal debate with a partisan of a deeply lunatic belief structure other than to present these statements, for what they may be worth, in a public form for consideration by the community at large. Fucyfre 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

• Comment – As Omura and the BDORT as well as those various pseudoscientifc miracle accomplishments derived from the BDORT, eg, the healing powers of 'Special Sunrise and Sunset Solar Energy Stored Paper' are effectively interchangeable, it might be further stated that the Heart Disease Research Foundation, from which Omura derives a salary as Director of Medical Research, is itself an entity some might, upon external scrutiny, consider of dubious character. I am aware of its having been at least upon one significant occasion under very critical scrutiny by the New York State Attorney General's Office. A bit of superficial research will readily establish that its principal claim to fame is that it attempted at one time to sue General Motors as representative of the entire populace of the United States in a case which succeeded only in establishing federal precedent as to its absolute and utter lack of merit – in effect a simple attempt to loot General Motors in its own interests. This, of course, is simple personal opinion, but I suspect it would be the conclusion of more than a few. In any event the facts of the case are very much a matter of legal public record, as having established federal precedent and are routinely cited as such. Fucyfre 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

I quite agree with Philosophus earlier observation that this entry may very well be of inappropriate length and rather sprawling. If anyone cares to edit/consolidate or offer any thoughts as to appropriate consolidation which they might have, I'd be more than happy to entertain those possibilities. Fucyfre 23:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

AND, the world is FLAT !

It seems that only one contributor to this discussion os brave enought to use a real name. Until Columbus fell of the edge, everyone thought that the world was spherical, like a ball, but they laughed at Columbus when he set sail. Get out of your armchairs and physically go to these people and watch them work. perhaps the effect of your disbelieving electromagnetic field will stop it working. That in itself is sufficient to validate the existance of the effect.

Have you worked out how Acupuncture works yet? How about Homoeopathy? Are these also psuedoscience? or are thousands of doctors arounde the world deluding themselves? Morpheuz 09:36, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

While you may not be Richard Malter in disguise, if you are, please note that trying to circumvent a block in this manner is generally considered a grave solecism in the Wikipedia community, per WP:SOCK. Note also that with a few unfortunate exceptions, we tend to judge an editor by their involvement in the project, not by who they are, or how open they are. But yes, there are thousands of "doctors" around the world deluding themselves, or at least deluding others. It is an unfortunate situation, and I don't have time to go remove all of those delusions with my disbelieving electromagnetic field. --Philosophus ^T 10:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture and homeopathy are indeed both pseudosciences. Needling (acupuncture without the meridian nonsense) might be credible. Users of homeopathy are indeed deluding themselves and those whom they treat with it. Acupuncture is a mixed bag. Knowing how they work is not essential to an acceptance of them in EBM, while whether they work above and beyond the placebo illusion (it basically has only subjective effects, and no significant objective effects on real biological illnesses) certainly is a necessary criterion for acceptance. -- Fyslee 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

Personal witness of the sort suggested by Morpheuz-likely-Malter (hereinafter, if necessary, so as to facilitate economic reference, on my part referred to as M&M) is essentially a demonstration of faith. If, in fact, the technique(s) is/are possessed of the attributes assigned by their adherents they are objectively and repeatedly demonstrable to and by disinterested, even hostile, parties. I am aware of no attempt on the part of the adherents even to approach credible, objective, external evaluation. Most, I would think, would find this telling. Fucyfre 11:57, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

If there is no objection from the consensual community I'm removing the reference to BDORT being taught at two medical schools in Tokyo. No cite was given and there seems a clear, indeed an overwhelming, disposition on the part of the adherents in their attempts to claim established scientific validity for this particular form of pseudoscience to employ any association, however vague, as if it were affiliation. Witness the employ of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia to create an aura of legitimacy. If, in fact, BDORT is part of the curriculum of an established, reputable medical school, note to that effect would be, of course, appropriate. This entry, however, presents no cite, and I find no reference in a Google search to BDORT being part of the curriculum at any known reputable medical school. In a sense this reminds me of a book on UFOs I read very early in my youth, on the dust jacket of which the author claimed affiliation with a major observatory – Palomar, if memory serves. In fact, the 'affiliation' was that he sold guide books along the road to the observatory. Fucyfre 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply by --RichardMalter 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) and CURRENT SUMMARY OF EDIT DISPUTE please do not edit this comment

Morpheuz is not me: end of this conspiracy theory. The biases now in this article from extreme POV are very obvious and many. Facts and theories have been included from published reliable reputable [PubMed] et al sources. Deletion again [has occured multiple times previously] of these will be clear breach of Wikipedia core concepts. "Pseudoscience" is therfore a POV. Much of the wording of the topic is currently "a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research": for example, claiming cause and effect and speculating on why doctors around the world have done or not done this or that (ie have or have not used the BDORT or know about it etc); and other speculations to advance opinion; these also come under "asserted" views. Please reread the NPOV page for what you may or not do regarding your biases. If we all keep to these it will be much better. For example, "lead one to accept or not-accept the truth of a claim, not because of the strength of the claim itself, but because it does or does not correspond to one's own preconceived ideas". You are currently dismissing ALL of the scientifc published reputable peer-reviewed [PubMed, et al] non-original reserach evidence, which is 100% bias on your parts. You are also deleting straightforward reported fact, such as many [ie more than 50/100 doctors around the world HAVE IN POINT OF INDISPUTABLE FACT on 4 continents of the planet [see citations from International BDORT page linked to above] used the BDORT for many years. Furthermore, there now have been 3 (excluding myself) contributors (one in the history page) and including an expert scientist directly on this topic on this page [who/that satisfied Wikipedia criteria] who have expressed clearly non-agreement with the biases/POVs of Fucyfre, Fyslee, Philosophus, and Spondoolicks [who have never given any contrary scientific findings to their POVs (that satisfy Wikipedia criteria)]. Also that scientist has expressed just the opposite, also of which you have ignored from your POV bais. Therefore, it s also verifiably correct that the claim that there is concensus by the forementioned contributors is not the case here and untrue. You have also attempted to dismiss the contributions of other contributors because they did not agree with your POVs, and also the expert scientist by claiming that his contribution and especially his published research did not follow Wikipedia criteria - which I subsequently demonstrated (see above links) did. I will now improve the article now in line with Wikipedia ideas. I have requested larger Wikipedia community help on this page.--RichardMalter 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

I've taken the liberty of reverting this page to its previous status, as seems in my understanding appropriate. The essential issues have been covered and seem to me not to require further repitition or elaboration. I will note, if only for the benefit of the adherent true believers that the emendation to indicate the long-distance Qigong 'experiment' did not require nudity is quite wrong. The adherents may feel free to look up the photos in Omura's house (literally – well, apartment, anyway) journal 'Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal.' I would suggest to the adherents of this particular faith that they simply present their materials in appropriate form to the appropriate fora if they are, in fact, convinced their processes are scientific. Certainly Omura has never attempted to do so. – Feel free to ask him. Fucyfre 05:39, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

PS: I would further state the obvious for the benefit of those disinclined to acknowledge the obvious: The PubMed cites are simply summaries pointing to Omura's own journal, no more independent validation than a US Library of Congree listing of works 'proving' that aliens built the pyramids would constitute independent confirmation of that 'theory.' Fucyfre 05:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Policies

I was asked to comment here. I don't know anything about the topic or the points under dispute, but a couple of things jumped off the page. First, in the intro (problematic part in bold): "However, it is mainly ignored by the scientific and medical community, due especially to lack of any research published in what the community considers to be reputable and peer-reviewed journals. Its basis in applied kinesiology also means that it is widely considered to be pseudoscience.

• (a) You can't say it is ignored by scientists because of the lack research published in reputable peer-reviewed journals. Rather, it's being ignored is signalled by, or equivalent to, that lack of published research.
• (b) There could be other reasons for its failure to be featured in peer-reviewed journals.
• (c) Are you certain that there are no peer-reviewed journals that have written about it?
• (d) In any event, the sentence would have to be rewritten. As it stands, you're saying loud and clear that you don't rate it. I would leave that part of the sentence out entirely and just say something like "The test has not been accepted by the mainstream scientific community." Most readers will take the point, but it's not being labored.
• (e) You can't label it pseudoscience without citing a very good source that specificially discusses that test and uses that term.

The second thing that signals POV is the sentence about the patient having to take off his or her clothes.

The basic problem is that the article isn't properly sourced. It would be a good idea to make sure that every claim is sourced to a reliable, published source. If everyone edits in accordance with WP:NOR, WP:V, and WP:NPOV, the dispute will likely resolve itself. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 07:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to my previous version re above. Please improve in line with Policies.--RichardMalter 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

It seems to me that the only significance attributable to the BDORT justifying it's inclusion in Wikipedia is precisely that it is a form of pseudoscience. It has no other claim to significance of which I am aware. If the definition of pseudoscience is, eg. Merriam-Webster's 'a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific' [3], or that of Wikipedia's current entry for that term, 'a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research,' pseudoscience, then the BDORT, if one simply considers the claims made, cited, by its adherents, juxtaposed with the evaluation of the NZ authorities, cited, which is the only objective evaluation made by an external source known to me, qualifies. If the BDORT is not pseudoscience, I have no idea what is.

The particular form of the entry at present is, I agree, somewhat problematic. It reflects the fact that an adherent has consistently attempted to impose a form upon the entry which would present the BDORT as established, reputable science. It seems to me that an entry more nearly like the initial entry (of my making, to note an interest) is more appropriate. The facts would then, I think, better speak for themselves. The entry as just reverted by RichardMalter is now once again a billboard for the wonders of BDORT in my estimation. Fucyfre 11:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously a problem with sources here. The article has to be in accordance with all our content policies. These state jointly that Wikipedia publishes majority and significant-minority views which have already been published by reliable, third-party sources. We represent the different viewpoints in proportion to how many reliable sources hold them. That is, we don't given disproportionate or undue weight to minority views. We also don't use self-published sources except in articles about themselves; that is, we can use John Doe's personal website in an article about John Doe, but we can't use it anywhere else.

Most of the statements in this article are not referenced. Some sentences have dead embedded links after them. Other points refer to Yoshiaki Omura's journal, and the article says the two principle research bodies were founded by him. Therefore, we have to be very careful, because it sounds as though we're dealing with self-published material. Does anyone know anything about his journal? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I do. It is a journal he publishes out of his apartment in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan. He is listed as editor and it is in fact essentially a one man show. He employs students recruited from the Columbia University area by having notices posted on bus stops in the area, and these constitute his sole staff. the board listed in the journal itself is a list of adherents/accolytes/whatever who are not actually consulted. Essentially, Omura publishes himself and his adherents and gives himself and them titles, eg, F.I.C.A.E. Omura has never, ever submitted to an independent refereed journal. Fucyfre 14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I will assume, then, unless corrected, that self-published sources are taken as valid only to the limited extent of documenting claims as having been made by proponents – not for the actual validity of the claims made, which require external, verifiable independent sources.Thus, presumably, cites to Omura's publication and to his websites in New York and Japan are valid only to the extent of documenting claims as having, in fact, been made by proponents – but not their actual validity. If I am in error in this understanding as to Wiki policy, please feel free to correct me. Fucyfre 23:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. The material in Omura's journal and websites is evidence only of claims he or the author have made. They should be presented as "According to X writing in Y," for example, and then a citation should be given in the form of a footnote, Harvard reference, or embedded link. You should also be careful not to include too many of Omaru's claims. If he is the only person writing about this, and his journal is the only one promoting it, then it's not very notable and we shouldn't say too much about it, and possibly shouldn't say anything. Are there any third-party sources at all? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The journal acts, as any other professional/technical journal acts, as a 'holding space' for related research material. It certainly contins some articles by Omura; but it also contains many research papers from many other reliable sources (by which I mean MDs/Ph.Ds) on 4 continents of the planet. This diverse (geographical) range of contributors to the journal means the idea that it is 'non-independent' doesn't stand up. As just one example, please see on this page a list of contributors to just one of the external links cited. The claim of 'self-published' across the board is simply not the case. I have already addressed the fact that on planet earth co-researchers or/and researchers in a related field tend to be colleagues. This fact does not lessen the scientific validity of their research (in any field). Again where a journal is published, and who is the editor and what colour their hair is might be interesting to someone who does not like Omura/BDORT, but of very little relevance to this article on Wikipedia. Again the first paragraph is speculation, constitutes original research as it tries to establish new analysis unpublished elsewhere and so again is clear POV. Please improve in the next few hours, or I will do it.--RichardMalter 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

The description of the BDORT 'mechanics' that you have again reverted to are incorrect and so I will swap it for the paragraph that I wrote that you have deleted again, if you do not do so, as simple point of accuracy. --RichardMalter 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• I give up. I cannot endlessly engage in an attempt to breathe an element of sanity into madness. I literally cannot spare further time to engage in a contest of wills at endless length with a true believer. Perhaps this is my limitation, perhaps it is that of the collaborative process which Wikipedia represents. So be it. To quote that great scientific authority, Dr Frank N Furter of Rocky Horror Picture Show fame, 'Madness takes its toll.' Fucyfre 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Third-party sources

Are there any third-party sources who discuss the bi-digital o-ring test, either positively or negatively? If so, could someone direct me to them, please? I've looked at the New Zealand document cited but it doesn't say much about it and seems to equate it to Peak Muscle Resistance Testing, saying BDORT is another term for that. Is that correct? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 10:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is correct in my understanding. I have not been able to find any particular usage of the term Peak Muscle Resistance Testing other than that of Richard Gorringe, who was the practitioner under review. The commission and the experts it cites in its report explicitly equates the two, indicating, in my understanding, that the method employed was, in its understanding, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which it and the experts it consulted charactrize as a particular form of applied kinesiology. Adherents of the BDORT seem to mainatin the position that the disgraced physician did not correctly employ the BDORT and that therefore the findings of the commission have nothing to do with the BDORT. I see, in my reading of the commission's report, no basis for such distinction. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other third-party evaluations. I can state definitively that Yoshiaki Omura has stated that he has never in his career sought any third-party evaluation in the sense that that term would ordinarily be understood, ie, peer-reviewed independent review of some sort, but I have no way of documenting that statement on my part. Fucyfre 11:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is my independent read of the situation. The MPDT document appears to be indictment by a NZ medical tribunal against a physician who, among other things, used the BDORT (which they equate to PMRT) on a specific patient. The tribunal relies on an expert who claims that BDORT/PMRT is experimental and not medically proven, and the board concluded that the physician should have disclosed that fact to the patient and gotten her informed consent a priori, which he didn't (Particular 5, 'proved' in per. 757). The tribunal states its opinion about PMRT, for example here:

"363. We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognised diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible."

The BDORT promoters, claim that the physician improperly applied the technique 'and was subsequently retrained'. It is unclear if this tribunal is the equivalent of the U.S. FDA for example in terms of its overall expertise or access thereto, but it leaves the issue of independent outside experts in support of this technique open. In the most NPOV, this appears to be a controversial, medically unproven procedure. IMO this should be stated upfront in the lead-in paragraph, with the proper references included. Crum375 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I did add to the intro that it had not been subjected to a double-blind trial, which the New Zealand case mentioned, and had not been submitted for peer review, which makes the point in an understated way. Perhaps too under-stated, I don't know, but it's important not to use language in the intro that appears designed solely to discredit the test, unless it really is something that multiple good sources have condemned. I worry that one case in Wellington, New Zealand is not quite enough to establish that this is a scurrilous thing.

On the other hand, the lack of third-party sources is worrying, and in fact it makes the article possibly a candidate for an AfD, or for redirecting to and merging the contents into the page about Omaru. Therefore, some third-party sources are needed to establish notability. They needn't be scientific journals; any newspaper or magazine article would do. Is there anything? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 11:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure the issue here is notability. The fact that the procedure was addressed and considered unproven by the NZ tribunal which published its findings establishes notability, IMO. If there are published sources, even by the inventor claiming efficacy, IMO that could be used to state in the article's lead-in "claimed by its inventor" to do whatever, followed by the statement of no independent proof of efficacy, and the reference to the NZ case. I am not sure there would be ground for AfD - unless efficacy is a criterion for encyclopedic inclusion, which I doubt. Crum375 12:17, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I don't know that there is anything. Granted I'm new at this, but my initial entry was infinitely shorter and attempted to simply present a brief description of the BDORT, and link to BDORT proponent page and to the NZ commission. I did characterize it as pseudoscience but that seemed to me valid in that it seemed to meet the definition in that proponents claim scientific validity without having obtained or attempted to obtain any external confirmation of their claims. Fucyfre 11:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem with alternative medicine is that it's defined in terms of a system (evidence-based medicine) that it isn't really part of, and so naturally it will always be found wanting. It's therefore important that we don't hold up practitioners of evidence-based medicine as the only people who are allowed to speak reliably about healthcare. Having said that, we shouldn't stray too far in the other direction either. We're left, as always, with the best option being to report impartially what each side says, trying wherever possible to rely on third-party sources, so as not to allow the main proponent to use Wikipedia as a platform — although we must allow some input from the main proponent too, so that he and his work are not unfairly criticized or inadequately represented. It's always a question of juggling. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I essentially agree with your observations in re alternative medicine. New insights may come from outside a field of intellectual activity's horizons of a given time, or may be related to a field as it defines itself, yet not of that field, yet useful. My frustration here had been largely with the practical question of how to cope with a committed user who seemed, at least from my perspective, essentially to perceive no other perception of reality other than his own. Clearly this is a common problem. Any thoughts on how best to approach this entry, then? Fucyfre 12:20, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'd say the best approach is to gather some third-party sources and rewrite the page according to their point of view, if they exist. If they don't, we have to very carefully describe who Omaru is, and quote from his journal, perhaps also making clear (in neutral tones) that he self-publishes, if he does. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 12:24, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'll attempt to contribute to that process, then, searching first for any third-party sources. Fucyfre 12:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment on Third-party sources

Do any of the following things help [addressed especially to SlimVirgin and Crum375]?

(Bear in mind that there are degrees of 'independent', not absolutes)

• (1) please note that we have had an third-party expert (scientist) on the subject comment here on this page [see NEW COMMENTabove]. Please note that the study he refers to, was, as the article explicitly states as one of the study's objectives, an independent, double-blind study published in a peer-reviewed medical journal in the USA. Some of it is online here: [4]

Query below about his qualifications. And is this a peer-reviewed medical journal? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• (2) Another third party, independent commentator is:

Electrical engineer, Michael Losco [from Russia] published a synopsis of the method, including some procedures and capabilities [in support] of the test: Losco, M. Suggestions for Performing the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. In AER,IJ [Omura's Journal]. pp. 53-64. in AER,IJ. Vol 16, No 1/2. 1991.

For the time being, we need to find sources that are entirely independent of Omura. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• (3) A third independent third party view is:

According to Borgna MD, "it [BDORT] is so sensitive that no conventional western diagnostic method, even the most sophisticated can match it" Borgna, Adriano, MD. L.Ac. Inform-Consent-Form for Ethical and Possibly Legal Problem in Early Diagnosis with BDORT, April 14, 2005; presented to an international medical conference here: [5] (see conference schedule for: Sat.p.m.).

What page is that on? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• (4) To characterize current usage, the following is a very easily verifiable statement:

"It is currently used in many countries in Western medicine, Dentistry, Veterinary, Acupuncture and Oriental medicine, including Europe and Japan." [see Selection of Published scientific papers above for links to reports by MDs/Ph.Ds on 4 continents, that prove verifability of this statement]. I thought that the sentence that we did have saying "However it is ignored and unknown by the mainsteam medical communinty" was just fine to balance it.

Can you please just give the cites? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• (5) Re the NZ case, very quick comparison of the Indirect method here [6] and Gorringe's use, shows that he used his own invention, ie not BDORT procedure. Is this 'original analysis', or just presenting fuller information? Is there a way to present this info with NPOV.

No, it would be OR. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

• (6) Here's an extract i dug up re Applied Kinesiology re this page:

BDORT was discovered in the late 1970's by Omura while testing grasping strength of the hand while being subjected at close proximity to a battery-generated positive and negative electro magnetic field. Omura criticized the traditional arm pull method by showing unreliability in arm strength, fatigue from changes in brain circulation, and a time-bound ghost effect from each attempt. ref: Shinnick, Phillip, American Academy of Medical Acupuncture, vol 14/#3, reprint, 2003.

Thank you. Is that a complete citation? Is there a date? SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:38, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

- The point of presenting this is that because some contributors here are also engaged in an edit war on Applied Kinesiology (AK) asserting that it is also pseudoscience, already established as POV here, to stop POV overflowing from one page to another (ie this), instead of just saying its a form of AK, can we say something like:

Beginning with a study of Applied Kinesiology, which he criticized, according to Omura, he discovered the O-ring phenomenon during the course of investigating pain threshold and grip force. He noticed that when applying pressure to create pain on the body of a patient, the patient's grip force decreased. He observed that induced pain would decrease grip force, and even a light pressure on skin areas (very often) related to "previous pain" also reproduced this phenomenon. However, pressure applied upon "normal" areas did not cause decreased grip force. - ref: Omura, Y: Applied kinesiology using the acupuncture meridian concept: Critical evaluation of its potential as the simplest non-invasive mean of diagnosis, and compatibility test of food and drugs—Part 1, Acupun Elec, 1979; 4(3/4).

--RichardMalter 12:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I have presented above, I think that SlimVirgin's addition

that there has been no double blind trial or peer review

is not accurate, and suggest its removal.--RichardMalter 13:23, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, do you know what Phillip Shinnick's Ph.D. is in? The article you linked to says he is Director of the Research Institute of Global Physiology, Behavior and Treatment, Inc., in New York, and previously worked as Clinical Assistant Professor at New York Medical School, and Assistant Professor of History and Sociology at Rutgers University, Piscataway, New Jersey. There's no mention of his specialist field. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

And where he got it from, if you know. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:39, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, here is my take. I don't see in your 6 items above any independent published peer review. 'Peer' for me (in medical matters) means being critiqued by recognized board-certified physicians, i.e. 'MD' in the U.S. In the examples you cite above, I see a PhD (non-MD), specializing in alternative medicine (Dr. Shinnick), I see an engineer (Michael Losco), and I see Dr. Adriano Borgna who is titled 'MD(Italy) L.Ac.' in some of my google searches, and some just have 'L.Ac' alone. In the example you cite above (your item 3) you don't include the '(Italy)' part for him, and I cannot find any title for him at all in the conference schedule you provided. I am unclear at this time of Dr. Borgna's certification. If he is a physician, i.e. Medical Doctor (MD) in the U.S., please provide a reference. Otherwise, I have yet to see independent medical published peer review, or results of a double blind study. I do think, however, that you can make a case that BDORT is notable as alternative medicine, and as I noted above, efficacy is not IMO a criterion for inclusion - only notability, sources and a neutral presentation. Crum375 13:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not that there's anything wrong with being an MD in Italy, it's just that explicit and clear citations and descriptions would be very helpful. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 13:52, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There are excellent MDs in Italy (as I can attest to personally) but the fact is that I couldn't find Dr. Borgna's title without '(Italy)MD' or L.Ac. - if any such reference exists it would be useful to have it. Crum375 13:59, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Not sure, sorry; i know Shinnick's PhD is from the USA and that he is not an MD, though he worked in the medical field and still does, and has lectured to US Congress re sports medicine and health of US athletes etc; he has also published other specialist medical papers re pain control with acupuncture, pulse diagnosis etc etc. All refs for these on the web - do a Google search. He was also Omura's assistant for 6/7 years. Borgna is an MD originally from Italy but USA certified and currently practicing in West Village, NY, USA. He has some cooking refs on the web - his Italian hoby. Re 'peer', the American medical acupuncture journal states clearly that it is "by physicians [MDs] for physicians": 'medical acupuncture' is the term used by MDs to distinguish them from their POV from non-MD 'traditional' acupuncturists. - ie it is in fact "critiqued by recognized board-certified physicians" in the USA. I think then we can conclude that Shinnick's paper is a double-blind MD peer review research paper (non-original) as a point of verifiable fact. See [7] re Borgna, a ref referring to him as an MD in NY, and pic of him.--RichardMalter 14:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Please excuse my ignorance, but:

1. I don't see where it says in the article you cite for Dr. Borgna that he is 'MD'; and
2. Why can't we have a better reference certifying the professional credentials of a doctor than a cooking section in a magazine?

Crum375 14:11, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I found Dr. Borgna mentioned as MD indirectly (not with complete affiliation etc.) here [8] under ACKNOWLEDGEMENTs near the end, but this appears to have been written by Dr. Shinnick. Crum375 14:51, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I can find no clear indication of Shinnick's PhD but his expertise would appear to be sports medicine. [9] Fucyfre 14:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

A search for 'Borgna' with the category 'Physician' at what would seem the appropriate site [10] finds no listing that I see. Fucyfre 14:49, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, can you say again where the double-blind study is presented? Sorry if it's obvious and I'm overlooking it. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 14:50, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

There is an third-party review here [11] (which is on the critical/skeptical side) which is the only third-party consideration of any merit I've been able to locate thus far, but I don't know that it rises to the level of evaluation that would be authoritative. Fucyfre 15:29, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Shinnick

Phillip Shinnick: (note that he's referred to as Mr. Shinnick): "I am the director of the Research Institute of Global Physiology. It is a privately endowed research institute. Right now we are sponsoring research in QiGong for tumors and liver. We are doing things having to do with acupuncture for the effects on organs. But I am also a U.S. Olympian. I was captain of the U.S. National team. I also was an athletic director and director of sports science at Rutgers. I have been in health for about 20 years. The reason that I sit here before you today is I was an Olympic athlete. I was former world record holder in the long jump." [12]

So it seems he's this Phillip Shinnick. [13] [14] SlimVirgin ^(talk) 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It would indeed so seem. (An interesting background). Nice work digging that up. This would seem to suggest the PhD may well be in Sports Medicine or Physiology or something of that sort, but that would only be speculation. Fucyfre 15:19, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

==Malter Institute== [wrong Richard Malter - a personal info mistake] Just found this, possibly of some use as background information Malter Institute. Fucyfre 23:21, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Also some background info included with Malter's book listing at Amazon [15] Fucyfre 23:36, 21 May 2006 (UTC) Which book is self-published [16] Fucyfre 23:40, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Professor Mark Bryden Cannell

'I find it deeply disturbing that the only people who seem to claim reliable diagnostic results are those who make a living from applying it and some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.' – Professor Mark Cannell, Testimony before the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand, par 306 [17].

'Professor Mark Bryden Cannell, who at the time of the hearing held the Chair of Physiology at the School of Medicine at the University of Auckland before which he held a personal Chair as Professor of Biophysics in the University of London. He teaches medical and science students, post graduate science students and conducts research programmes which employ state of the art techniques in cell biophysics to help clarify the mechanisms underlying normalcy and disease. Most of his scientific work has centred on the biophysics of muscle contraction. He has published extensively in international journals on excitation contraction coupling and is recognised as a world expert in this area. He was called as an expert.' ibid, par 285. Fucyfre 00:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Evident New Omura BDORT-Related Patent Application – Special Solar Energy Stored Paper

Would an addition to the Omura and/or BDORT entries with this seem appropriate? [18] ? Fucyfre 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, please see number (1) above in comments to Third-Party, the link at the end of it to American Medical Acupuncture Journal [also see Shinnick's comment on this page - he is the expert that I referred to]. In the article that the link points to there is also this text:

lineIntervention A toxic organ pathway using a triple-blinded technique with a sample of a toxic substance to that organ, and normal organ tissue as the control reference, and achieving a reversal of the Yin and Yang positions for the Lung and Colon. In addition, the 3 starting positions for the Lung, Toxic Lung, Colon, and Toxic Colon on the hand were compared with modern and older (Ming) meridian systems.

Fucyfre, you have the wrong RichardMalter. See my Twiki page for correct info. Why did you wish to find out more about me? Is that coherent with Wiki policy?--RichardMalter 04:54, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

My apologies if I am in error. As most members of the species, I've been known, on occasion, to be in-coherent, or at the least somewhat out of phase. One never knows what will bear upon a matter in first phases of inquiry, in my estimation. On the internet, after all, no one knows you're a dog.

I'm not familiar with the notion that a description of an experiment in which 'the subject, the author, and the person holding the probe did not look at each other' being defined as 'triple-blinded' is what would ordinarily be understood by the phrase 'triple-blinded.' Is this a misunderstanding on my part? Fucyfre 06:18, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

If I may ask, are there any instances of published, peer-reviewed, independent evaluation of treatment in which BDORT is the diagnostic, and there is a control group? The instance you cite involves, in my reading, no form of control. Am I missing it? Fucyfre 06:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard Malter's comments/replies

I think we can argue ad infinitum re definitions. I think we are missing the underlying point: POV involved here.

The test has not been subjected to a double-blind trial [2] or submitted for peer review.

"pseudoscience" has already been 'ruled' POV - this is just another way to say this; I think it asserts a position (which you do state repeatedly above). You also delete when I present a verifiable minority statement, eg:

it has been used by many MDs around the world [country list]"[19] even though it is widely ignored and unknown by the mainstream medical community.

I think this should go back in, unless you, SlimVirgin, Crum375, object with Wikipedia Policy rationale. Since no one objected, I will also do what I suggested in (6) above. The Applied Kinesiology (AK) page is currently in a POV war. I dont think it, other than strong POV reasons, that we should link to it unless in the format I suggested. Also in point of fact, the BDORT is only say as a rough description, 25% AK; the main use today is the Molecular Resonance Phenomenon part. Omura himself calls the AK usage "Stone Age BDORT". Incidentally, re this:

and some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.' – Professor Mark Cannell

what "controlled scientific tests" is he referring to? Is this just his POV? I ask genuinely. If we are questioning one source (Shinnick) so much, then why not follow up Cannell's statement. I know of no "controlled scientific tests" of the BDORT that do not confirm BDORT phenomenon.

Also SlimVirgin, can cites such as this [20] by lots of MDs, of which there are more than 30 [linked to above] really not independent?

Richard, would you mind helping me find out the professional titles/credentials of the authors listed in this citation? I have not been able to so on my own so far. Thanks. Crum375 12:21, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found some here via google. Crum375 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

We are really stretching the definition of 'independent' - must they be Marshans? [joke] Are we saying that they are All not reliable (third-party) sources? Are we saying that anyone that uses the BDORT AND is an MD is included in Omura's research team?! On this Talk page alone I listed scores of MDs/Ph.Ds (just scroll up). I really think we have a major underlying problem here that stems from POV.--RichardMalter 07:24, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

As another piece of the picture, here [21] is the research paper listed that does document how and that the BDORT resonance phenomenon works. The authors are all well published MDs/Ph.Ds Cannel et al made some big statements, but they did not refer or directly attempt to refute this paper for eg. So I think we should simple "characterize" the views. Otherwise we are indirectly saying that one lot of scientists carry more weight than a second lot.--RichardMalter 07:40, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Here is yet another lot of MDs that say on their website (ie give their MD status opinion that):

It is experimentally confirmed, that during physical overlapping of physical characteristics defining two identical tissues, a short-term inactivation of the enzymes in the brain's pineal gland occurs. The phenomenon of obstruction (stoppage) in willing / unwilling muscular contractions resulting from enzyme's N - acetyl - serotonin transferase inhibition in pineal gland and therefore increased concentration of serotonin following descending serotonergic system was for the first time successfully used by Prof. Dr Yoshiaki Omura in his researches on electro-resonance of tissues and electronics [BDORT]. The experiments also proved the existence of electromagnetic waves receptions on the skin surface and their larger distribution on hands. These very intriguing and revolutionary experiments have been done in a parallel way on the Universities in Japan and in the USA during the last 14-15 years. The researches are based on knowledge about electromagnetic waves of tissues and their interference, which was given by Mihajlo Pupin and in NikolaTesla's works.[22]

From all I have presented, here, in actual bodily numbers, it seems that it is clearly a fact that the individuals that gave their opinion in the Gorringe case are in the minority of professional opinion ever made on the BDORT. --RichardMalter 07:47, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

. ..So, if no one can prove inaccuracy from a very good source of the above so-far proven documented statement (here), then I will add this 'numbers' info re medical/scientific opinion, soon, as an accurate characterization of global medical/scientific opinion, in line with Wikipedia ideas of characterizing in accurate proportional numbers/terms a debate - when such exists.--RichardMalter 09:19, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Re Crum375'S suggested criteria for 'peer reviewed': "independent published peer review. 'Peer' for me (in medical matters) means being critiqued by recognized board-certified physicians," even a cursory look at the cites I have listed many times over satisfies this; so I am taking out this assertion from the first para.--RichardMalter 11:53, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, again please help me on this one. Can you point me to an article (one would suffice for now, so please make it the best example you can find) published in a mainstream medical peer-reviewed magazine by MDs presenting scientific results from BDORT? It would be very useful I think. Crum375 12:37, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm also taking out the alternative medicine link. Because, One distinction that the NCCAM makes is that complementary medicine is used in conjunction with conventional medicine whereas alternative medicine is used in place of conventional medicine - the BDORT is very often used with conventional medicine - eg drug compatibility with standard antibiotics, ie this definition makes this link-attribution a factually incorrect assertion. Also from the same alternative medicine, Richard Dawkins, Professor of the Public Understanding of Science at Oxford, notes that alternative medicine is defined as that set of practices that cannot be tested, refuse to be tested or consistently fail tests. - but BDORT can be tested very easily, (anyone here can do it at home for eg) (for the cost of about US$10 for a prepared microscope slide easily obtainable (and has been repeatedly). So both definitions (as currenltly on Wikipedia) in fact incorrectly describe the BDORT.--RichardMalter 12:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Please note my questions embedded above. Crum375 12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

About the merges

Where before we had four articles -- three small ones about a person and two organizations that he appears to have founded, and one large one about a diagnostic test attributed to him, each of which cited the others -- there is now a single article that deals with all of these closely-related topics in one place. This should help cut down on duplication, and help reduce confusion. -- Karada 12:22, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Karada, that seems much better. I have edited the Omura section in line with where we are with the BDORT discussion, viz AK, alternative med., etc, consistency and not to repeat info.--RichardMalter 12:34, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, this is the best I can find I think:

(a) The Importance of Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in the Treatment of Multiple Hepatic Abscesses- A Case Study Iwasa, S., M.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (1 dan) Orthopedic Surgeon, Director of Brazilian Medical Acupuncture Association Neves, L.B., M.D. Gastroenterologist, Medical Assistant of the Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, Federal University of São Paulo- UNIFESP Lopes, A.C., M.D., F.A.C.P., F.I.C.A.E. Professor and Chairman, Department of Internal Medicine, Medical School, Federal University of São Paulo- UNIFESP [23] - this is in Omura's journal that you found from Google, so does not satisfy the Mainstream criteria, but does all the others: it is of course peer-reviewed (by other MDs), and results from these authors can we assume are by scientific method? (or by only reading the full article)?

(b) [24] by 1st author Shinnick, but also with Celia Blumenthal, MD quoted as participant. - Mainstream: yes; peer-reviewed: yes; MD participant in research: yes; "scientific results": depends on if you mean scientific Method in which case, yes, or if meaning control group, then no. But I think Scientific Method should be the criteria.--RichardMalter 14:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, as you note I found the (a) reference myself while googling. However, I would not characterize it as a 'mainstream' medical publication. Similarly for your item (b). I think the problem we are having here is trying to force what seems to most neutral observers (and I consider myself one FWIW) an Alternative Medicine procedure into the mainstream, without an appropriate mainstream source. Crum375 15:48, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just now saw the latest version of the article (I guess by SlimVirgin) and it sounds good to me. Crum375 16:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I just made a couple of what I believe are minor and appropriate emendations and additions. The entry seems fine to me, as well, at this point, thanks to the efforts of a number of Wikipedians. Fucyfre 20:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Might 'Application' (or 'Applications') be a better section head than 'Purpose'? Fucyfre 21:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I would agree, except that the NZ Tribunal affair really doesn't belong there. It probably merits its own short section just following. Crum375 21:36, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

And talking about sections, I think there is a problem with the current level scheme - the BDORT related sections (currently 2, 3 and 4 with possible addition for the NZ affair) need to be subsections of the main BDORT section. As it stands now it is inconsistent, probably due to the merge. Crum375 21:43, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

I've made the first of those changes. I agree as to your suggestion for hierarchical revision – how does one mark that up? Also, while derived from the insights of BDORT, it would probably then make sense to place the description of Special Solar Energy Paper for which patent is now sought as an item not within the BDORT section per se, but dependent to the overall Omura entry, yes? Fucyfre 22:07, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes, sounds reasonable. I fixed the section hierarchy for now. Crum375 22:38, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Selective Drug Uptake Enhancement Method ought, in a sense, while dependent upon the BDORT for its devisement and application/evaluation, be a separate entry, yes?

I don't think there's enough substance in it as it stands. But it's a future expansion, I guess. Crum375 23:00, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Okay, that sounds sensible enough. Fucyfre 23:03, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Selective Drug Uptake Enhancement Method ought to be merged here, as it appears to be part of Omura's medical research. -Will Beback 07:45, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Question re Background section

Quoting from the current version:

"According to Omura's papers, the electromagnetic component of the BDORT was discovered in the late 1970's while testing grasping strength of the hand while being subjected at close proximity to a battery-generated positive and negative electromagnetic field: positive or negative electromagnetic fields had an effect on the hand and finger grasping strength."

The reference given at the end is [25] which brings up a paper abstract:

"Effects of an electrical field and its polarity on an abnormal part of the body or organ representation point associated with a diseased internal organ, and its influence on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (simple, non-invasive dysfunction localization method) & drug compatibility test--Part I."

I am not familiar with the term 'positive or negative electromagnetic fields'. In the abstract only an electric field is mentioned, which can be positive or negative. Should the sentence in the article say 'electric' instead of 'electromagnetic'? Crum375 02:37, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

It's pseudoscience, you can't expect it to get the Physics right. There is no such thing as a "positive electromagnetic field" or "positive electric field" - neither field is a scalar. Even if they were referring to electric potential, talking about a positive or negative value requires that the zero is defined in some way. Perhaps they are referring to charge? --Philosophus ^T 04:06, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Omura attempts, in his shall we say particular way, to apply scientific notions to the phenomena in question. Think of it as analagous to the 'Reverse polarity!' in a 50s vintage scifi movie. He will happily apply the wonders of the BDORT to determine, for instance, that barbecue potato chips are a health food, and that McDonald's is a safer, healthier place to eat than a local gourmet restaurant. Not to mention that the ability to obtain proper sunrise and sunset solar energy stored on paper index cards is influenced by local background radiation. Fucyfre 05:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I think electromagnetic is correct. For eg, Omura's original experiments were with electric circuits that were made to produce similar electromagnetic fields; the circuits were then positioned to experiment with overlap; since he got a determinable effect with this set up, he tried substituting two indentical tissues samples (on theoretical basis that they would have same moolecular/electromagnetic field), and went on from there. Remembering that current physics understanding is that basically we have fields; that are sometimes matter etc. Re "Alternative Medicine procedure into the mainstream" - yes, I see what you mean; my discussion around this is still because of the (100% OK) POV bias here of wanting to term it "Pseudoscience" by one means or another. From all I have presented, here, in actual bodily numbers, it seems that it is clearly a fact that the individuals that gave their opinion in the Gorringe case are in the minority of professional opinion ever made on the BDORT. []So, if no one can prove inaccuracy from a very good source of the above so-far proven documented statement (here), then I will add this 'numbers' info re medical/scientific opinion, soon, as an accurate characterization of global medical/scientific opinion, in line with Wikipedia ideas of characterizing in accurate proportional numbers/terms a debate - when such exists. no one objected so far - so as fair characterization I will add this anon. We also sometime before had a line that was something like, the first part of which can easily be citated:

It is practiced by many/some medical doctors, Oriental medicine practitioners around the world; but is is largely unknown by the mainstream medical community --RichardMalter 06:38, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I agree with others that the page is looking much better now--RichardMalter 06:43, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

For my part I would judge the page in its present form to be essentially effectively neutral in its presentation. I feel that the changes you suggest are inadequately supported, unjustified, and will take the entry from its present neutral presentation. Fucyfre 07:10, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

From a physics standpoint, this makes no sense. Would you mind explaining it more clearly? At the scale under consideration, we do not basically "have fields".--Philosophus ^T 09:00, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Philosophus that the term 'positive electromagnetic field', or even 'positive electric field', does not make sense since these fields are vector quantities and positive or negative only refers to scalars. So as the sentence stands it is simply mathematically incorrect. I am unable to access Omura's full paper by following the given link, only the abstract, in which only the term 'electric field' appears. As Philosophus suggested I think just the unqualified term 'electromagnetic fields' would suffice if correctly relecting the paper, but not having read the paper I can't tell if that will be a proper representation of it. Crum375 11:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In brief response to Richard, regarding the term 'pseudoscience', IMO it is not civil to use it because it is derogatory and basically says 'false science'. Science is never true or false, it just keeps getting better (hopefully) and closer to being able to model the universe around us. Crum375 12:18, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

You should look at the Pseudoscience article. Scientific theories can be proven false, but that doesn't really have much to do with Pseudoscience. Pseudoscience "is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work". This certainly satisfies that definition. Quackery is the "practice of promising health-related benefits for which there is little or no basis" - this probably satisfies that definition too, since there is little verifiable and reputable basis here. --Philosophus ^T 23:30, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

According to the Pseudoscience article:

"It generally has negative connotations because it asserts that things so labeled are inaccurately or deceptively described as science. As such, those labeled as practicing or advocating a "pseudoscience" normally reject this classification."

The way I interpret it, one editor calling another editor a 'promoter of pseudoscience' is uncivil and is unlikely to lead to useful collaboration on controversial topics. It is fine for one to believe that someone is a fool, it isn't fine to call him/her that. I think the Pseudoscience article is excellent as it stands, but labeling this (or any other) topic as such (or quackery) would be POV. IOW as encyclopedist, assuming a topic is notable enough, one's job is to describe the topic as clearly as possible from a NPOV. If it is controversial, then describe the various prevailing POVs and provide suitable links. Going into a POV discussion on the merits of the topic is not useful IMO and wasted time and energy. Crum375 00:04, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that since most people in the medical community don't have time to write about such topics, you usually only find sources for a positive POV. In this case, we are lucky to have at least one source labelling the practice as pseudoscientific and dismissing claims of validity. For the categories, I will bring up the same point that I did in the Aetherometry articles (and hopefully not elicit the same response) - many of the people in the Murderers category or Criminals sub-categories would dispute the tagging - does this mean we shouldn't use those categories, or any category which is not sympathetic toward the subject? --Philosophus ^T 00:13, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Please see my response below. Crum375 00:23, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm new at this particular form of collaboration, so please make appropriate allowance: I think that the facts, if presented with clarity, as they are to very considerable measure at present in this entry, speak for themselves. If one wants to let them speak for themselves still more clearly, perhaps the best effort is simply to attempt to assure, as best one can, maximum clarity of presentation. I'm sincerely sympathetic at what seems to me, from the entries here, to be Philosophus' righteous impatience – there are very real moral consequences and responsibilities here, in my estimation. The disadvantage of such a frank, 'uncivil,' approach in the context of Wiki, however, is that, in Realpolitik terms they energize the advocates, and, in their minds, justify their behaviors as they are encouraged to see themselves as unfairly and unreasonably dismissed. To the extent that they are so energized the entry at any random point of scrutiny by a passing reader is more likely to be compromised as to the clarity of its presentation of the facts as facts. The most central fact here, it seems to me, is simple: We have a series of extraordinary claims made for a process and its attendant and derivative processes which claim the authority of science yet have never, to the best of my knowledge, pursued the processes normally expected for one claiming status as science for a procedure. Let that simple, elemental fact be clear, let its resonance speak. Fucyfre 00:59, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most of your points, especially the fact that 'this is not a toy' - there are moral/ethical issues at stake. But I also believe in the open process, and therefore in the WP principles. I am optimistic about the end results. Crum375 01:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Pseudoscience Claims

The Pseudoscience claims inserted into the latest version require reliable sourcing. Otherwise it is WP:POV and will be reverted. Also the related categories will go unless the said sources are provided. Crum375 00:15, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

To Philosophus: I am quoting from the NZ Tribunal report:

"363. We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognised diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible."

The Tribunal never directly labels the PMRT/BDOT procedure directly as 'Pseudoscience', although indirectly the word does come up. But even if they did, that would be only one POV, of one Tribunal board, in one rather small country. I am not suggesting that the US FDA, if it had to rule on this issue, wouldn't decide similarly, but that would be speculation. IOW, to support your fairly strong assertion about the wide medical community's opinion that BDOT is Pseudoscience you need a better reference that would make that claim. I think the wording that existed prior to your changes was reasonable, right now your new claims need to be supported by WP:RS. Crum375 00:34, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I've changed this to make it more accurate given the sources that we have. The Pseudoscience category, while not directly sourced, is supported by a few points:

• The basis for the test, AK, is categorized as such,
• The NZ findings describe the test as having "no scientific validity", and papers by supporters assert scientific validity.
• The findings of a reputable government body in a respected country should be held as much more reliable than papers not published in any respected peer-reviewed journal.

I will look around for a better way of justifying this. --Philosophus ^T 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I just saw your latest change, the unsupported claim about the medical community at large is still there, and will not fly without proper sourcing. BTW, even if you found a reliable neutral source that claimed it, the best you could claim is: "According to sourceX, BDORT is considered 'pseudoscience' by the mainstream medical community". Or according to various sources, if you find several. All need to be cited. Crum375 00:43, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Another point: unless you provide the 'pseudo' reference (for that the single one in the Tribunal could suffice), the categorization as pseudo would have to go, ditto for quackery. But the respective articles could be added in "See also" I assume, for the reader to learn more about the allegation even if it is only claimed by some. Crum375 00:50, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Where does one add references for categories? --Philosophus ^T 00:54, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I suggest the following (and can do it if you can concur):

1. Take out the sweeping unsupported statement which sounds POV
2. Add par. 363 which I quoted above, under the Tribunal reference
3. Take out the POV pseudo/quack categories, add reference to both in 'See also'

Crum375 01:01, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

This looks good --Philosophus ^T 01:44, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I added this reference from www.quackwatch.org, which comes up when you search for 'BDORT'. This should help substantiate the 'See also' additions, which IMO only require an allegation of quackery by an established source. Crum375 20:19, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I deleted the quack/pseudo links -- this is plainly a POV attempt to insert a POV suggestion into the article - it does not serve the article in any way other than that. I will charactize the opinions in 'numbers' soon (see above comments). Crum375, re the +-EM fields, it is not critical, but I think this refers to Omura's "convienient" terming of an EM field for its + or - effects on the grip force etc. Remember that many research scientists [see links above in Scientific Papers section) have commented positively and published papers re the BDORT - they are not all idiots who dont really understand science and you, Philosophus and Fucyfre are not the only ones that do. We have to balance the article with current opinion characterized proportionally vi WP ideas.--RichardMalter 21:27, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I guess I have an issue with both your changes. First, regarding the removal of the 'See also' references, the way I see it, a casual reader who sees references of various topics mentioned, or alleged, such as 'Quackery' and/or Pseudoscience, may wish to further educate him/herself on those topics after a first pass read of the article. This is my understanding of 'See also'. You will notice that I specifically removed these topics from the categories. I believe the categorization can only be included as non-controversial descriptions, not the case here. But 'See also' does not allude that this is the category - it only allows the reader further education on the topics, including alternative medicine in general, so that he/she can reach their own conclusions, without WP prodding them in any specific direction in the controversy. This is what I consider WP:NPOV and the WP spirit.

Second, I think the sentence where you removed the 'claims' is now somewhat unclear to a casual reader. I propose the 'Omura says' that I put in, but am open to suggestions to make sure it is Omura saying it, not WP.

Note that I did not revert your change to the 'See also'. I prefer others to chime in before that is done, as I believe in consensus.

I hope to convince you that I don't consider myself to have a monopoly on 'understanding science', as you say. All I want is an NPOV article, which clearly presents properly sourced claims so readers can make their own judgments, as I noted above. Crum375 22:32, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I will agree that the See Alsos should be there. There are strong allegations of pseudoscience and quackery, even if the allegations are disputed. As for the 'claims', I interpreted the According to Omura to refer to the history of the "discovery", not the validity of the claims. --Philosophus ^T 23:17, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

I am in agreement with both Crum375 and Philosophus on these issues. Fucyfre 01:26, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted the 'See Also' section removed by RichardMalter. I suggest that if Richard disagrees to discuss it here prior to re-reversion. Per above, I think the issue is that allegations made in the article should have information available in the 'See Also' section for the reader to read and reach own conclusions. Crum375 01:37, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems to me particularly important in instances where perspectives need to be compared and a sense of consensus derived, that there be prior discussion. Fucyfre 02:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Obviously people with a POV that the BDORT is quackery will argue for this in this way. (Rough) consensus is well and good but only re a NPOV article. CLEARLY, adding pseudo/quack etc is STRONGLY suggesting the POV that this article is within the quck/pseudo realm, which is only a POV. Re "casual references" - I am saying that clearly these are not that; why not have a casual reference, to say, "O-Rings" which are an engineering item; you might reply that we could; but that would not diminish the clear point that no one here as decided to do that; what they have decided is to want to include the pseudo/quack refs - which is clearly a POV bias. I think that is as clear as could be. I note that when previously people identified an obvious POV, it was removed quickly, there was not a long discussion on this waiting for some kind of consensus; here, this is double standards: the same applies here: its POV to include these See alsos. I am removing them as people here have removed other POVs in just the same manner.--RichardMalter 07:59, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

The logic of this series of statements seems to me somewhat lacking. To say that '(Rough) consensus is well and good but only re a NPOV article,' begs the question in that the shaper of the statement tacitly asserts in the form of an assumption the truth of his conclusion. I am inclined to find assertion a poor substitue for discussion. The entry has been reverted as per my understanding of the consensus and the logic re this topic. Fucyfre 08:43, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

I have discussed, so have others; much earlier in this discussion this topic was also covered; we are going round in circles. How do you justify the inclusion of this? You have not done so so far. I have merged the Tribunial bit into a new heading: Medical and Scientific Debate in line with WP ideas of characterizing a debate if it exists. I suggested I would do this days ago and asked for objections which there were none - so I have done this. Fucyfre, I understand your POV and dislike of the BDORT - but you are very clearly trying to 'insert this any-which-way, which I object to 100%. (I only did not agree to this earlier because I was not online when you made these changes). SlimVirgin can you comment on this please.--RichardMalter 09:16, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

In my judgement the entry prior to your latest 'improvements' was comparatively neutral, if somewhat lengthy. In my judgement, also, your editorial efforts consistently attempt to skew the article. Others may, of course, judge for themselves. In any event, your assertions that a significant number of physicians, etc, employ Omura's practices are effectively unsourced. A list of names, references to Omura's own journal and the few other alternative medicine journals that reference it would not seem in my understanding to support your claims. Nor does typing in upper case. You will note that your earlier attempts to advance an argument from authority fell effectively fallow. The burden of proof rests on the person who makes an assertion. To the extent that you wish to make positive assertions for Omura's methods and their really quite spectacular claims the burden, in my understanding, rests on you to provide independent credible sources. Perhaps you might direct your energies rather more in this direction rather than in repeating unproven assertions and then complaining of their being so regarded. The BDORT, you will note, is itself, on evidence, a circular, self-confirming process, which suggests obvious parallel. Fucyfre 09:33, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Message to RichardMalter

Richard, please let me give you my advice, which you can ignore or accept at your discretion. I understand that you feel that there is a POV effort by others to override your own (per your Web page) pro-BDORT POV. I am sure you understand and agree that WP's mission is to present a neutral view - not favoring one side or the other. The way to arrive at that neutral point is not by you reverting changes that are made after discussion and consensus here, but by trying to convince others that the existing version is too POV and that making change X will improve it. As soon as you unilateraly revert or otherwise make changes, even if you personally feel they are perfectly justified, you start operating outside the boundaries of the collaborative spirit. Doing these unilateral actions, without appropriate discussion and/or consensus, will not help your cause nor be productive. It could even result in your getting blocked for over-reversion, or otherwise uncivil behavior by the admins. Please try to trust the system. There are many people, myself included, whose sole motivation is to see that, once an article is deemed notable, it is presented in the fairest and most neutral manner possible (assuming it is controversial) and is well sourced, leaving the judgment of fact to the informed reader. It is our collective duty to present the information and dispute (if any) clearly, with appropriate sources, after careful discussion and consensus here. Please try to understand this and please refrain from making unilateral changes to the article. Thanks, Crum375 11:35, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I am not not listening; and have not or am not ignoring what you say. But please comment directly on the points I make too, please, thank you. --RichardMalter 21:30, 25 May 2006 (UTC) Crum375, please also note that I count 4 people who have contributed to this page that have not agreed with Fucyfre's representation in this article (one of whom is an expert on the topic) - the idea that there is consensus here is fiction. Please also note that I twice explained in advance what I intended to do re characterizing the debate, and asked for objections to this, which there were none over a period of days; but then when I make these changes which are also entirely in line with WP ideas as explicitly stated, they are deleted. I see this as clear Vandalism - can you show that this is not just that?--RichardMalter 21:41, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I have some real intensive work to do in the next while so I may not be as WP-active, please bear with me. In the meanwhile, how about we agree to some ground rules among us, at least for now:

1. No changes (beyond a non-POV related typo if any) to the article unless we reach at least some semblance of consensus here. That means if noone responds to a suggestion it could be that some people are working, sleeping or otherwise unable to respond, so give them 48 hours or so.
2. If we have issues to discuss, let's address them one at a time, and deal with each one separately - it becomes overwhelming and impractical to have more than one issue or point to iron out at one time (for me anyway).
3. Similarly for examples, when required. Let's always pick a single best shot as opposed to a pile of not-so-perfect examples.

If this is acceptable to you, I promise you that as long as I can, I will do my best to address all your concerns in an impartial manner, as I have tried up to now. Hopefully the others can chime in if they agree to this informal scheme.

Now, let me respond to a couple of the issues you raise.

• Vandalism - I think the various reversions and edit changes, as long as one is trying in his/her own mind to improve WP are not vandalism, regardless how POV they may be. They could be called edit wars or otherwise uncivil behavior but vandalism is when you insert 'graffiti' with the intent to deface or destroy an entry. I agree with you that being uncivil is also not productive, and can even lead to blocking, so we should all, IMO, try to avoid any unilateral changes from now on.
• Your examples. I asked you to see a single example of an article about BDORT published in a mainstream medical journal. Just one. For me that would mean not by a dentist, or an acupuncture expert, or a PhD, or anything that is related to alternative medicine. Just a regular board-certified MD, publishing in a reputable mainstream journal (not for alternative medicine) for other board-certified MD's, preferably in English so we can understand it, and preferably in the West or otherwise English speaking nations, since it is hard for me to evaluate the qualifications of the author or publication elsewhere. I have yet to see one single such example. If you can get me just one, we can address it individually and take it from there.

Thanks, Crum375 23:07, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• Consider me as having chimed in with these proposals in all particulars as well as their general spirit. Fucyfre 23:44, 25 May 2006 (UTC)

• I just noticed Philosophus is on wiki-break till June 7, so we may not get his vote until then, but also no edits I guess. Let's now wait for Richard. Crum375 02:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I genuinely appreciate your intentions for fairness, which I trust, and look forward to working with you. Thank you. That said, when I can see something improper, I will not not note it (to you). Can you see that regarding what you propose, it would be fine, but we do not start from a 'level playing field'. Changes were made in 48 hour periods when I was not able to comment, that I would not have agreed with. Currently, there are 3 repeat references in the page text [starting with Omura's section] to the Tribunial report - one with a quote, and 2 more other links[pseudo/qauckwatch]: all of which very very obviously are aimed by Fucyre et al (because that is their declared POV both of the BDORT and Omura personally down to what accomodation he lives in) of saying that they "dont rate it" [quoting SlimVirgin in the context of her comment on Fucycre's et al wording of the first paragraph in the original draft she commented on]. 3 repeat references, and 2 other links of this kind: if this is not out and out POV then what is?! Please just answer my question about this: if you do or do not see this as the case? Previously there was also an attempt that SlimVirgin also recognized to portray Omura as desiring nudity as part of the BDORT in such a way that it presented him in an unfavourable light. I mention this to impress the point that the POV here is very strong indeed. Reading the first sentence of the original article, it is clear that the inclusion of this topic on WP was intially for furthering the intention to portray it as pseudoscience. I can only reiterate that putting in the See also links Pseudoscience and further down to Quackwatch (+ 3 repeat references) obviously tries to 'lump' the BDORT under this heading - I will not insult your intelligence by spelling out this point further. You mention about 48 hours, which would be fine; but I gave much more public notice than that, twice, and Fucyfre still immediately deleted my characterization of the debate (with no even vague attempt to improve on it). I consider that POV Vandalism; you have not convinced me otherwise. So I would like to point out to you the hard fact that you are asking me to agree to a guideline that previously has been totally unacceptable to Fucyfre and also since you did not object, to yourself: can you see that this is obviously not what is described by the word 'fair'? I would like these things addressed first: usually in a problem situation there is a need for recognition of events and a degree of remedy, before 'sides' are happy to procede further.

Now you ask about references. My reply is that obviously there is a debate about this subject. So let's state that there is, and characterize it. Fucyre tries to dismiss the many abstracts from 4 continents by MDs/Ph.Ds in Omura's journal; and alsothe USA medical Acupuncture Journal which includes in the article by Shinnick PhD the participation of at least one MD stated in the article [I think there were more]. To reiterate again, mainstream MDs practice acupunture->they have a journal that they peer-review, this one-> which is explicity for "MDs by MDs". So here is an article you have been asking for. It's 'maintsream' - unless you dismiss ALL those board-certifed US MDs as not being mainstream [BTW there is a lot of fight between MD delived acupuncture and traditional acupuncture that the MDs are very certain about they are different and superior, to add weight to what I say] The, all journals, as I have previously noted, are 'holding spaces' for field related information. No journal in any field is any different in this aspect. Are we really claiming that these published abstracts in English [that I linked to above and in the article] are by fictitious people invented by Omura, and that all the details of these trials etc (that include in some cases control substances independently analysed by labs to compare with BDORT data) are also ficticiously made up by Omura? Because that is what we have to do effectively to say that this information is not reliable. Are you really saying that we cant use any of this information to help the article, not even to characterize the situation/debate? I think I did this in the version Fucyre deleted, why not have a look at that, and improve on it, rather than deleting it, Fucyre - you gave no WP reason for what you did? Can you now? I am considering suggesting the whole article be deleted, if I can from a WP POV. Crum375, Of course Fucyfre et al will agree to your suggestions now, they have the article in a state with mutiple repeat references to their POV. Can you make any other suggestions? I will temporarily refrain from making any more changes before you reply, with respect. I hope the others do the same. But this is only temporary. I think we might need to bring in more people to help if these obvious POV problems cannot be resolved.--RichardMalter 05:16, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Point the First: It was my understanding, as stated at the time, that a consensus had formed and that you had unilaterally altered the entry to fit your particular understanding. I believe that the record will bear that out.

Point the Second: It would seem to me helpful, if an appropriate cite meeting generally agreed criteria exists, to refer to it. It is my understanding that the cite to which you again refer had not met with acceptance ot its rising to an appropriate level of remove and of verifiability.

Point the Third: While there are a number of aspects of the present entry which do not reflect my interpretation or understanding of the matter the present entry seems to me, on the whole, to be both neutral and appropriately balanced.

Fourth: Your observation that 'all journals...are "holding spaces" for field related information' is in my experience and judgement as well as, I believe, in general intellectual understanding, both inaccurate and insulting – it is analagous to saying, eg, that Springer is just a house that puts out what comes in over the transom. If you believe such to be the case why not simply take advantage of this fact, send something in over the transom, have it duly published, and settle the matter to the satisfaction of all parties? Fucyfre 06:10, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Clarifying where there is POV in this article

Crum375, I am clarifying a few points I made, viz exactly WP principles (quoted):

• (1) re the Shinnick American Journal of Medical Acupuncture published article: Celia Blumenthal MD, Assistant Clinical Professor, Pediatrics, Assistant Clinical Professor, Psychiatry, Mount Sinai School of Medicine, NY, USA [26], was one of the three researchers documented as participating in the research (not as an observer as guessed at above previously on this page), together with a research scientist (Shinnick) that has held a senior medical assist-professor position at a USA university, in documented research that was published in a journal "by physicians for physicians" in the USA. The situation is actually the reverse: the onus of WP:Verifiability "already been published by reliable and reputable sources" lies with anyone here to disprove or show unreliabilty and disreputability, with verifiable cites of this journal and the article in it. To make the point finally, I do not think that the mainstream medical [MD] acupuncture journal of the USA would appreciate this, by the WPedians here, other than dismissing them as POVers.
• (2) The same point in (1) above applies to 'Omura's journal' published by cognitive communications (USA), which has abtsracts cited on the web and full articles from an international [contributions from 4 continents] MD/PhD base - some of whom are in very senior mainstream medical psoitions including in the USA. How does anyone here demonstrate unreliabilty and disreputability of this publication and its contents - in Wikipedia terms which clearly state have already been published by reliable and reputable sources? Where are the verifiable citations that discredit this journal and its contributors articles in WP terms? If there are none forthcoming, then there is every WP principle to use this information plainly.
• (3) Reiterating again re consensus: you yourself having noted the problem of time-lag in different contributors to this discussion, if you cannot go through this talk page and find four (including SlimVirgin, and me) contributors who spoke against the idea of labelling of the BDORT as pseudoscience, please let me know as we will have been looking at a different Talk page. The idea that there is consensus thus far is a fiction verifiable from simply skimming through this Talk page.
• (4) I have asked you to say whether or not you consider 3 repeat identical information/citations of the Tribunial in the body of the article, and three more external (pseudo/Quackery/Tribunial) links on the same assertion, clear POV bias.
• (5) I am stating for the reasons given, that this article currently very plainly contradicts WP explicitly stated WP principles. And I have asked for anyone here to be able to contradict that statement in clear WP quoted terms--RichardMalter 11:32, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am not saying there is no POV in the discussion here. And POV in the discussion is perfectly legitimate, if presented in a civil manner. OTOH, POV in the article is unacceptable, and it is our collective duty to fix it. What I suggested is to do it one item at a time. I propose we start with the issue of BDORT is not mainstream and/or BDORT has not been accepted by the mainstream community. If you accept these statements as NPOV, then we can move on to other issues, otherwise, let's address this issue first. As I mentioned I have non-WP work to do over the next while which I cannot neglect, so please bear with me. Thanks, Crum375 12:45, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I was only referring to POV in the article, I thought that was clear. I accept this statement, I think the latter is better, I included it myself, no discussion. Since this is under the catagory of 'characterization of the subject', please also address here what is not in the article. To balance that statement I noted in the version that was reverted/deleted something like has been studied and applied clinically by many MDs/Ph.Ds around the world in Western medicine, Vetinary, Dentistry and Oriental Medicine although proportionally these numbers are very small - which I then followed by a sentence like the one you quote. Does that seem reasonable to you? [re the verifiability of what I propose, see points 1,2 above]. I think that makes accurate characterization of the topic.--RichardMalter 21:30, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, I am still not able to justify your proposed modification with the evidence I have so far. Please let me explain why. As I mentioned earlier in the discussion, I have yet to see a single solitary example of a bona-fide board-certified MD publishing anything about BDORT in a mainstream medical journal. And as I explained above, and especially since you use the term 'Western Medicine' above, I prefer to see English language publications so that I can judge for myself (and I assume this applies to most editors in this English WP) the credentials of the author and publication. As of now, I have not seen this single example. Please give me a single one. Not many imperfect ones but a single good example. Sorry to repeat myself, but perhaps I was not clear enough before. Once we see the single best example of a mainstream medical publication (and I explained that to me 'mainsteam medical' means not acupuncture or other alternative medicine areas) publishing an article by a board-certified MD about BDORT, hopefully in the West and in English per the above, we can proceed. Thanks, 21:55, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had the opportunity to read through all the discussion, but I agree with Crum375. The references given by RichardMalter are far from mainstream medical opinion and are not reliable sources by Wikipedia criteria. Andrew73 23:26, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, Andrew73, I would like to clarify this further, I am not aiming that the article say anything about mainstream medical opinion for the BDORT; if you read the wording I propose, I actually suggested the opposite description explicitly - as this is fact [please read through the discussion, Andrew73]; I thought this was clear. I am saying that what I propose accurately describes BDORT usage in the world. Then, on that basis, are you really saying that the journals I cite, are not "reliable and reputable" (even to describe the usage of BDORT)? Where is the detailed WP policy for the exact criteria that you are insisting on that that you are saying dismisses these sources? Lets just round this bit of the discussion off please.--RichardMalter 07:53, 28 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. Crum375, I think you also have a technical misunderstanding of fact. 'Medical Acupuncture' is not alternative medicine as you lump it together with: 'Medical Acupuncture' is ONLY AND SOLELY practiced by board-certified MDs, in all countries of the world, including the USA - this is the definition of the term. This means that even the criteria you are asking for, which I have challenged, are in fact met, not imperfectly, but 100%.--RichardMalter 08:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC) Crum375, to back up finally what I wrote last, i just looked up the AAMA requirements: General Requirements

 1. Graduation from an accredited allopathic or osteopathic medical school in the United States or Canada, or possession of Final Certification by the Educational Commission for Foreign Medical Graduates (ECFMG) if graduated from a medical school in some other country. 

http://www.dabma.org/requirements.asp I have just read through WP:verifiability again, I am maintaining that the criteria you are asking for are not supported necessarily by WP policy. But even if they are, this citation does satisfy those criteria - unless: you are asserting that ALL the board-certified MDs [there are 10,000s world wide] practicing Medical Acupuncuture are not "maintstream". --RichardMalter 08:16, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to do this by bits, but furthermore, I just looked up the article again [27]. Under DESIGN, SETTING, AND PATIENTS, it is reported that many Western physicians participated actively in this research (not just the one senior one I noted above):

The research was performed at the Center for Sports and Osteopathic Medicine in New York from 1986 to 1991, with a 100-patient pool per day. A total of 400 subjects were involved in the study. Richard Bachrach, DO, Steven Weiss, DO, and Mary Bano, DO, made independent Western diagnoses on each patient. During the study, the author did not consult the Western diagnoses of these physicians or consult the Chinese main meridian system. Each week, a physician's report was prepared for each of the patients treated by the author, and a summary of patient progress and findings was given to Dr Bachrach, President of the Center[] --RichardMalter 08:25, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, just to clarify what you are saying please, are you saying that along with Omura - a board certified MD, and all of this lot jyst for egs [28][29][30] of which there are scores more on the net, they are ALL unreliable sources to justify saying what I suggested re *usage*? ie they are not MDs and they are not using the BDORT?--RichardMalter 11:12, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

• The clearly intended implication of the alterations you have in past attempted to impose and which you presently propose is to create the impression on the part of the reader that Omura's armamentarium, while unknown to most of mainstream medicine, is supportable and supported by conventional criteria of scientific and medical validation. This is not the case, nor have you adduced, to date, evidence to support your assertion. Fucyfre 11:27, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

One good example of mainstream medical publication

Richard, I am sorry yet again, but if you have provided for me the single good example I asked for, of a board-certified MD publishing a single article about BDORT in a mainstream medical journal then I simply can't find it. The Shinnick article is a non-MD PhD publishing in an alternative medicine journal. Yes he does refer to MDs but he's not one, and the journal is not a mainstream medical journal. The other references you furnish about BDORT and Dr. Omura also do not contain a single example (that I could find) that meets my simple criteria of a board-certified MD publishing in a mainstream medical journal. I can accept that Dr. Omura is an MD - but I can't find a single article he authored about BDORT in a mainstream medical journal (at least in English and/or in the West - again feel free to point me to it if I am missing one). Bottom line (again) - to make the assertion that BDORT is anything but alternative medicine, i.e. to be able to assert that it is part of mainstream medicine, you must IMO provide evidence for it. For me that would entail seeing at least one article about it in a non-alternative medicine mainstream medical journal, authored by a board-certified MD. I have yet to see this single example. And as for acupuncture, I just read up on it on WP and the consensus seems to be that its efficacy is not accepted by the AMA nor the mainstream but I think we should focus on BDORT for this discussion. Crum375 12:19, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Usage: We are not allowed any WP:OR, but if we had an article published in a WP:RS saying "X number of BDORT procedures have been performed in the West (say) by MDs over the last Y years" we could say "according to (that source) blah blah". But we don't really have that here (to my knowledge), and we are not allowed to infer anything since that would constitute WP:OR (and using words like 'proportionally small' is frowned upon unless directly quoted from a reliable source). Yes we do have some web sites and the Shinnick paper that mention BDORT, but does that tell us (for instance) whether 300 MDs performed 70,000 BDORT procedures over the last 10 years? I have seen no indication whatsoever in the record so far what the real number is. Even Dr. Gorringe (MB, ChB) is not an MD to my knowledge so the total number could be 0 for all I know (if we exclude Dr. Omura and his direct colleagues). Anyway, according to WP:RS you cannot rely on sources that are known to favor an issue for reliable info about that issue, since they would not be expected to be neutral, so IMO any Omura-related or BDORT site is not an acceptable source. If you do have a neutral (e.g. non-BDORT and non-Omura related) site that you believe can provide us reliable quantitative figures on BDORT annual usage per country, and specifically by MDs if possible - please point me to it. Thanks, Crum375 21:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, please note I was not proposing anything to suggest whether this Test was mainstream or not. I wished to describe its usage. I dont agree with your opinion that for example the european site of the ECIM practice [31]cant even be used to say that the BDORT is used in Europe or this hospital website [32] cant even be used to state usage in Japan. Forget about numbers of MDs/BDORTests. Are you really saying that we cant even make a statement about usage by these people/places from these sources? I think its worth noting that if I include a reference, for eg the Tribunial report, the choice itself to include that information is a degree of OR: taking info I find and piecing together an article. With what bias this is done is the question here. What would be the WP criteria that would not allow us to say something to the effect that these people in europe and this clinic in a hospital in Japan use the BDORT (forget about numbers)? --RichardMalter 21:57, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

1) If you refer to the definition of ‘original research’ in the WP:OR entry cited you will note that your statement ‘the choice itself to include that information is a degree of OR’ is insupportable.

2) Information is content and context inter-dependent. To list a series of individual instances as in effect a semantic isolate may suggest a possibility of use more widespread than is objectively and verifiably the case. Consider: Suppose a skeptic were to say, ‘Fine, if you consider it appropriate to list every known instance of a facility where BDORT is employed, balance would require a comparable listing of every known facility where BDORT is not employed so as to create an accurate impression.'

3) As a point of curiousity: You stated above that Omura is board-certified. Might I enquire as to the specialization?

4) If you have verifiable independent third-party cites as to your assertions why not simply present them?

Many thanks Fucyfre 23:00, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, this is my opinion based on my best understanding of WP criteria. If you find a neutral and reliable source that says that X number of BDORT procedures were performed on humans by MDs in a given country or region during a given period, we could cite it, with language that narrowly states what it says (or maybe a direct quote). IMO for the source to pass muster of WP:RS it cannot be a site that is related to Omura or directly to BDORT promotion. The two sites you cite above both prominently display 'BDORT' in their front page and don't appear to be neutral sites that would meet WP:RS criteria. BTW, if the information were in Japanese in a Japanese publication I personally would not be able to help in assessing the validity of the information, and I suspect that would be true for most editors here. If you have such a neutral and reliable source for the number of BDORT procedures performed, again I much prefer a single good one to focus on, please point me to it. Crum375 23:17, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

And just to clarify, even to say that one BDORT procedure was performed by an MD on a human subject I think you would still need an acceptable source per above. Crum375 23:22, 28 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, thanks for the patience; I am going to trust that the WP policies will result in a NPOV article in the end; so I rest this argument. If we are using such exacting criteria, what does WP criteria say about BDORT has not been accepted by the mainstream community this seems to me then also WP:OR? Where is the neutral pre-published reliable citation for it? Then we can go on.--RichardMalter 07:44, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Evaluating "BDORT has not been accepted by the mainstream community"

Richard, thank you for your trust in the system. I agree with you in also believing that we will gradually move towards neutrality and objectivity, in this and all other controversial articles on WP. Now specifically regarding this 'compromise' statement, I was under the impression it was hammered out by SlimVirgin with everyone's blessing, and it does seem reasonable to me as a best effort wording to summarize the information we currently have (or don't have) from WP:RS. We do know that the only neutral evaluation of BDORT that meets WP:RS, i.e. the NZ tribunal, supports the statement. We have no other RS that contradicts it (per our lengthy discussion above), and not for lack of trying and searching, so I think that would make a reasonable case for it. If you have a suggestion for another equivalent statement, that clearly communicates the fact that we have no evidence that any mainstream medical journal has accepted BDORT, and that the only RS evidence we do have is the NZ Tribunal that flatly rejected it, feel free to suggest it here and we'll address it. Thanks, Crum375 12:25, 29 May 2006 (UTC

We cannot assert that the mainstream medical community (MMC) has not accepted the BDORT. To not accept it first you have to be aware of it. Most of the MMC are not aware of the BDORT. So the sentence makes a grand sweeping guess at MMC opinion. For eg, do you or do you not personally accept my understanding of acupuncture? You cant answer because you dont know what my understanding of acupuncture is. It is trying to say something about all the MMC doctors worldwide. Obviously this cant be done. This phrase about not been accepted by the mainstream community is also not asserted in the Tribunial report. It is therefore WP:OR. I suggest the following in place:

BDORT is largely unknown by the MMC.

BTW there is also this phrase in the report:

564. However, the Tribunal does not accept that PMRT as Dr Gorringe practised it was an evolving or experimental technique.

as you know, "as practiced it" is standard english for 'not practiced correctly". --RichardMalter 22:37, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

• 1) A statement of the form 'has not accepted' does not imply rejection, as you imply. Rejection would require knowledge. Non-acceptance may be the result of any number of factors. The statment in its present form makes no 'grand sweeping guess.'

  2) To alter the statement as per your suggestion to read as 'BDORT is largely unknown by the MMC' might suggest to a reader the possibility that its being unknown suggests the possibility of possible or probable acceptance upon familiarity when the non-partisan evidence adduced to date suggests, if anything, the contrary. It certainly does not support an alteration of less neutral character than the present form, which is what you suggest in the name of neutrality.

  3) Your interpretation of the tribunal's statement that ' . . . the Tribunal does not accept that PMRT as Dr Gorringe practiced it was an evolving or experimental technique' addresses the defense that the PMRT/BDORT at the least rose to the level an of acceptable scientific/medical 'evolving or experimental technique' and explicitly denies the validity of that assertion. It most certainly will not support within any reasonable or rational semantic bounds the assertion that 'as you know, "as practiced it" is standard english for "not practiced correctly". Fucyfre 22:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Richard, let me address the 2 items you raise. If I understand you correctly, you say that if we simply state that "BDORT has not been accepted by the mainstream..." it would imply that BDORT was actually tested and rejected by the mainstream. I think that a strict reading of the words does not imply rejection, although I can see that someone could possibly assume it, since we don't specify it either way. But the fact is that the only evaluation of BDORT that we are aware of by representatives of the mainstream is the NZ tribunal that did reject it (as PMRT). I know you say that the BDORT version in that case was 'incorrect', and that is mentioned in the article, but since we are not actually saying rejected in the above statement, I think it remains fair, given the situation, and credit is due to SlimVirgin for wisely selecting it. Let me address your 2nd point. You say that the statement 'as Dr. Gorringe practised it...' (in the NZ Tribunal's report) means to you that they confirm for us that he practised it incorrectly. I just re-read that section, and your conclusion that by these words the Tribunal is saying or implying that Gorringe used BDORT incorrectly is not clear to me at all. They say that as he used the technique it 'was not experimental or evolving', which I understand to mean he did not participate in a scientific research program in their opinion. However I do understand your point that Dr. Omura believes that the BDORT as practised there was incorrect and that point is included in the article, including Gorringe's subsequent retraining, both of which still requires a valid source, BTW. If you wish those points to remain there, a WP:RS must be provided for them, otherwise the claims may get deleted after a while. This does not need to come from a mainstream journal obviously. Crum375 23:38, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

SlimVirgin, made this comment re the version of the article we had at the time, now we have all kind of See also POV inclusions and 3 other refs to to Tribunial (that got in why i was offline making the idea that there was consensus about it a fiction, unless someone can cite me agreeing to these additions above?). The main point however is that the phrase we are suggesting is also not in isolation, it is the first part of a whole sentence, which has a whole meaning:

The test has not been accepted by the mainstream medical community, and has been labelled as having "no scientific validity" by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand [1][2]

Very, very obviously, not been accepted takes (extra) meaning from the rest of the sentence, especially because we have an "and" that means here 'and furthermore' which acts retroactively on the first part of the sentence. Crum375, you note that it could be "assumed" that accept means was tested and rejected; but a word has context, and in this context it means exactly what you say could be assumed. Also everyone here is actually saying that rejection requires knowledge, which this sentence is implying. Please come up with an alternative wording/format or lets delete it because it is WP:OR: there is no citation for it. (Yes, I will not dispute any other sentence in this article if it doesn't have a citation - this is going to be an interesting test case for WP policies amongst other things). We have to consider the sentence as a whole. Since i am guessing you might all be in the USA, here [33] is Webster's defintions for the word. Note that all 6 entries clearly need (fore)knowledge of the thing in question to then be able to accept or not accept. Then, since we are discussing now a whole sentence, more points to make about the Tribunial are that the experts were not experts in electromagnetism - which is the underlying 'theoretical' base of the BDORT as used today (the muscle test is just the end 'resultant').--RichardMalter 07:06, 30 May 2006 (UTC) P.S. the Tribunial couldn't be representatives or even represent the mainstream, strictly speaking. The mainstream is a big thing. At best you could say that the single mainstream opinion on the BDORT was--RichardMalter 07:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC) BTW, Crum375, could you please put something on the page that says the contents are disputed etc in whatever is the WP most appropriate format please - I think this is only fair re the current text which was arrived at after me not being online for a bit [a consideration that you pulled attentino to especially] and the additions that were made during that time. Thanks. Also for consistency since there is no citation for the WP:OR POV assertion about what the MMC have accepted or not i'm putting in the citation needed' note.--RichardMalter 09:00, 30 May 2006 (UTC) Crum375, as a (I think) useful quick study of current usage of the words "accept/acceptable", I did a search on this Talk page to see how you have used this word. Please do the same, if you are not already convinced from the above, and see how you have used these words - in what sense and meaning, you were always quite clear that you mean 'know about something but reject/see disimilarly etc; have a look.--RichardMalter 09:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Unilateral change to not been accepted in article

Richard, I notice that you added the {{fact}} to the article, in the statement we are discussing, and I do not consider it a 'typo' level change. I thought we agreed to refrain from unilateral changes from now on, so that we may quietly and rationally discuss each issue here and reach consensus prior to any change in the article. I plan to revert your change once I am done writing this, and watch your actions. I hope you accept the reversion (for now at least) and respond here affirming your support of the 'no article change without consensus on talk page first' principle. I do think your points otherwise merit response, but I'd like to be sure we all accept the ground rules first. It's easy for anyone to hit the 'edit' button and make unilateral changes. It's much harder to reach consensus on contentious issues, but once that is achieved, it will hopefully survive the test of time (and future editors). Thank you for your understanding, Crum375 11:32, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

• I agree. If you cannot at a minimum, Richard, adhere to terms of action and discussion to which you agreed but a short time ago, your actions seem to me at best problematic. Fucyfre 13:01, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
• The phrase 'not accept' is not a simple quasi-mathematical inversion or negation of the word 'accept,' the unstated premise upon which what passes for your analysis rests.
• Prior analysis, in my judgement, stands. Fucyfre 13:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Sartor Resartus Redux

It seems to me that your central concern is other than precision of meaning, Richard, so I'm going to offer you a simple observation with respect to your complaint of what you see as the inadequacy of the level of expertise presented before the New Zealand tribunal in the case of Richard Gorringe – a perception I do not share. The simple fact is that Omura had the opportunity to testify, and refused it. Had he testified he might have attempted both to distinguish his methodology from Gorringe's, and to present it to some level of independent evaluation. Similarly, he has never so much as attempted to submit any of his supposedly scientific procedures to any form of independent, peer reviewed scrutiny or evaluation, nor, so far as I am aware, have his adherents. One cannot with any credibility maintain the position that one is operating scientifically while confining one's claims to self-publication and promotion within a highly marginalized effectively self-referential grouping and at the same time conspicuously avoiding even the attempt to submit to independent review. Your conflict, ein my judgement, is not with semantics, but with the uncomfortable fit of those simple facts. FuCyfre 02:06, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Crum375, I considered that a non-textual change was not covered by what you proposed. Please go on with your process now, Thanks.--RichardMalter 03:52, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

FuCyfre, let's concentrate on getting the article, NPOV in WP terms. I suggest keeping your personal judgements about things to be discussed another time. --RichardMalter 08:15, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I simply thought you might find it a helpful point of personal information, Richard. If you find it unhelpful, so be it. FuCyfre 13:13, 31 May 2006 (UTC)