Talk:Richard Gorringe

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography. For more information, visit the project page.
Biography Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's quality scale. [FAQ]

Please rate the article and, if you wish, leave comments here regarding your assessment or the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

Contents

[edit] Purpose of hearing

Please help. I was not able to find in the tribunals finding any mention in the charges that these hearing were intended to review the application of complimentary and alternative medicine. Can you provide a reference to verify. Thank you. Anthon01 (talk) 23:11, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

The article does not say that the purpose of the hearing was to review the generic application of complimentary and alternative medicine. It does say that while reviewing the Gorringe matter, certain conclusions were reached, some of which are generic. This is all spelled out in detail in the two cited NZT reports. Crum375 (talk) 23:27, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
Then the statement

which drew upon expert witnesses to consider the application of complementary and alternative medicine.

is simply an unverified statement. It should read something to the effect "which drew upon expert witnesses to consider the application of PMRT," which is verified by the already cited NZT report. Anthon01 (talk) 03:58, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

_____________

Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB, of Hamilton, New Zealand, was found guilty of Professional Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct in 2003,[1] by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in Wellington, which drew upon expert witnesses to consider the application of complementary and alternative medicine.


I separated two sentences. It is easier to read and harder to misunderstand. The main topic is Gorringe's harm done by his use of a specific alternative technique at the exclusion of conventional medicine. If you believe otherwise provide citation.

Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB, of Hamilton, New Zealand, was found guilty of Professional Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct in 2003,[1] by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in Wellington. The Tribunal drew upon expert witnesses to consider Gorringe's application of Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) at the exclusion of conventional diagnostic techniques.

The third sentences clarifies the BDORT-PMRT relationship.

--Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Anthon, please read the entire NZT1 and NZT2 documents carefully. Please see also the quotes in the BDORT article. You will note that the NZT experts address BDORT and AK generically, and also refer to Gorringe's 'PMRT' (which appears to be the name he calls it). You make it seem like they were referring specifically to PMRT and not to BDORT and AK, while the sources say the opposite. Crum375 (talk) 17:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Crum: Lets take one issue at a time. The text says

The council ruled as to the lack of any scientific or other objectively determined merit or efficacy for Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT)[3] -- or other equivalent forms of Applied Kinesiology.

The citations rulings does not mention AK. Therefore the text should read

The council ruled as to the lack of any scientific or other objectively determined merit or efficacy for Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT).[3].

Anthon01 (talk) 18:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Anthon, here is Prof. Cannell's, one of NZT's experts, testimony from NZT:

A limited survey of the literature shows that the AK [applied kinesiology] testing results are unreliable – and this idea is apparently supported by some organisations 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 and some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.

Which part of it do you find unclear? Crum375 (talk) 18:32, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Please read my comments. The current text is talking about the ruling. The text you quoted here is the opinion of one expert. It is not the ruling.--Anthon01 (talk) 18:34, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
In other words the tribunal did not rule on AK, but on PMRT, refered to as BDORT.--Anthon01 (talk) 18:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
I ask you to please read the entire NZT1 and NZT2 carefully. The NZT1 specifically states that they adopt Cannell's findings, thereby accepting and adopting his AK related statements. Crum375 (talk) 18:47, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is 2 paragraphs below the one I quoted above: "309. The Tribunal accepts Professor Cannell’s evidence." Crum375 (talk) 18:50, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
This is not part of their findings. The findings begin on page 70. --Anthon01 (talk) 18:56, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
The NZT called Cannell to testify as their expert, say per above they accept his evidence, and then say under their 'findings': "355. Professor Cannell provided credible, coherent and compelling evidence which significantly assisted the Tribunal in considering and determining the relevant issues". Note that for WP's purposes, Cannell's testimony is also acceptable on its own merit, as he is an eminent reliable mainstream expert. Crum375 (talk) 19:05, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

All well and good, but you can't put words in the mouth of the tribunal. There findings did not mention AK. --Anthon01 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If X says Y, and I say I accept what X says, then I say Y too. This is part of our job in summarizing what people say. In addition, as I noted above, we have 'expert testimony' that was rendered as part of the case that is acceptable on its own merit. Crum375 (talk) 19:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

You're trying to extrapolate and interpret. There are many possible interpretations. Which one is right? The expert testimony can be included as expert testimony. But it cannot be included as part of the ruling because it is not listed in the ruling. If you want to go down that route, there are many problems with this report. --Anthon01 (talk) 19:23, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

This is what we say:

The council ruled as to the lack of any scientific or other objectively determined merit or efficacy for Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT)[3] -- or other equivalent forms of Applied Kinesiology.

I believe this is a fair and accurate summary of the NZT1 report, which includes the NZT calling on Cannell as their expert, Cannell testifying per above, the NZT saying they accept his 'credible, coherent and compelling' evidence. Removing the AK part is eliminating relevant and well sourced information from the article. Crum375 (talk) 19:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The addition of AK to the Tribunals rulings is your POV. The tribunal ruled on PMRT which it also refers to as BDORT. We can put the AK comment in a separate sentence as part of one experts testimony, but not as part of the findings, because it was not part of the findings. --Anthon01 (talk) 19:45, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a POV, except to ensure that WP articles accurately and fairly reflect their relevant and reliable sources. And we don't talk about 'findings' in the article, but a 'ruling'. As I noted above, the NZT ruled that Cannell's testimony, which discusses AK, was 'credible, coherent and compelling' and they accepted his evidence. To exclude AK, after the NZT says they accept Cannell's evidence which discusses AK, is to remove properly sourced information from the article. Crum375 (talk) 19:54, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Then we should add text that specifies what their 'findings' were. Then clarify any additional rulings that you find pertinent, including AK. I'm not sure why AK would be pertinent to include in this case. Could you explain why you think that is pertinent? --Anthon01 (talk) 20:11, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Based on expert testimony at the NZT1 hearing, AK is the generic term for what Gorringe called 'PMRT' and Omura called 'BDORT'. The experts, in analyzing the case, focus much of their criticism on the generic form of the procedure. The tribunal in its finding fully accepts the experts' analysis and opinions. To the reader, who doesn't want to wade through reams of testimony, we must present the essence of the case, and this is it. Crum375 (talk) 20:19, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

There isn't much to wade through. We write something to the effect that,

The council in its findings determine that a lack of any scientific or other objectively determined merit or efficacy for Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT). The council also found etc...

regarding other rulings

In addition, the council heard from one expert witness who found "the descriptions of the AK [applied kinesiology] methods and in particular the BDORT test to be inconsistent with known physical principles."

Anthon01 (talk) 20:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

RE: "AK is the generic term." How do you come to the conclusion? Citation please? I have never read that AK is a generic term for all muscle testing techniques that use muscle testing for evaluating a patient's status. The definition of AK does not include BDORT and PMRT. Neither of these techniques are sanctioned by the ICAK. If you'd like a citation to verify, I can provide that. Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Here is Cannell's summary re BDORT and AK:

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 produce 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 organisations 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 and some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.

I think it is clear that Cannell considers BDORT to be an example of AK, since he says "in particular the BDORT test". Here is another one:

305. 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.

Clearly Cannell's opinions, as well as the tribunal's which defer to him as their expert, in this matter apply equally to BDORT, AK and PMRT. Crum375 (talk) 22:13, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

I think the solution I suggested is a good compromise, don't you?
Regarding your first quote. What's ironic is the nowhere in AK literature does it describe an electrical field which is required to alter the electrical activation of nerve and muscle.
Regarding your second quote. I'm not surprised that "none of those studies reached the conclusion that PMRT was a reliable diagnotic technique," since none of those studies even mention PMRT, since PMRT is not an AK technique.
Regarding what AK is and isn't, do you think that the opinion of a expert in muscle contraction is superior to the opinion of the father of Applied Kinesiology? Why don't you check the ICAK website and see if anything in there sounds like PMRT. --Anthon01 (talk) 22:29, 24 November 2007 (UTC)
Our goal in WP is to present reliable information neutrally. This article is not about AK per se, but about Gorringe. Our main reliable source here is the NZT, and specifically Cannell. The source says, effectively, BDORT = PMRT = AK, and the source says AK and the rest are XYZ. That's all we need here. We are not going to delve into the intricacies of AK, for that we have the AK article. Anyone can click on AK to get there. Crum375 (talk) 23:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

If this is about Gorringe, then why mention AK? We don't need any mention of AK.

Where is the neutrality in this statement?

which drew upon expert witnesses to consider the application of complementary and alternative medicine.

I thought the solution I mentioned before was a good compromise. It sounds like you are not willing to consider that. What do we do next? --Anthon01 (talk) 01:06, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

I think summarizing Cannell's opinions as I quoted them above is the most reasonable approach. If you don't think so, then you can read up on mediation. One possibility is WP:RFC. Crum375 (talk) 01:33, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Summarizing Cannell statement ends up turning this article on Gorringe's malpractice into a review and guilty plea against CAM. Too much weight is being given to the CAM issue and not nearly enough to Gorringe and his mistakes. This is POV by undue weight. Even the order of sentences is unbalanced in that the most of the first few sentences is an indictment against CAM. This article should focus on the findings of the council, which is, Gorringe used CAM at the exclusion of conventional medicine. He hurt some patients as a result. He was found guilty of those things and lost his license as a result. This article as written now seems to be mostly an indictment of CAM. In your opinion, does Omura's POV on BDORT hold any weight? I will review the mediation process. Anthon01 (talk) 02:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

What would your summary of Cannell's statement consist of? How about a statement form Dr Omura to balance Cannell's POV? Anthon01 (talk) 04:00, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Omura is not a reliable source per WP criteria. Cannell is a reliable source, as part of the NZT, and the summary is already in the article. Crum375 (talk) 04:37, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Other Issues

I have a few other issues with this article. Should we discuss them now or resolve (WP:RFC) this one first? Anthon01 (talk) 15:12, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Just to recap, you want no changes to the article.

  • You feel the article was fine and conflating the findings with the experts testimony is the way it should be.
  • You would disagree with separating the findings from the expert testimony.
  • You believe that in discussing the issue of Gorringe's malpractice, that conflating :*PMRT (BDORT), with AK is proper regardless of whether or not the AK governing body, the ICAK, does not sanction its use.
  • You reject adding a statement that conveys that PMRT or BDORT are not ICAK sanctioned techniques.

Regarding this sentence:

Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB, of Hamilton, New Zealand, was found guilty of Professional Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct in 2003,[1] by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in Wellington, which drew upon expert witnesses to consider the application of complementary and alternative medicine.[2]

  • You agree with application of complementary and alternative medicine in this sentence. I see this as being too broad a statement, that in fact the 'application of' PMRT(BDORT) is specific and more appropriate.
  • You disagree with my comment about the article being unbalance in regards to CAM vs. Gorringe's malpractice.

Is that correct? Anthon01 (talk) 15:35, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's basically correct. We have a high quality reliable mainstream source addressing the issue of Gorringe, and we need to use it. If some other source says something relating to AK, but not relating specifically to Gorringe, then that statement belongs in the AK article, not here. If we were to include such as a statement here, we'd be violating WP:SYNTH, to the best of my understanding. It sounds like you want to fight over the definition of AK in this article, and revisit the tribunal's decision here, and I don't think that is permissible under WP's SYNTH and WP:NOR rules. Crum375 (talk) 15:53, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

No I don't think that is what I'm doing. According to WP:SYNTH

Here is an example from a Wikipedia article, with the names changed. The article was about Jones: Smith says that Jones committed plagiarism by copying references from another book. Jones denies this, and says it's acceptable scholarly practice to use other people's books to find new references. That much is fine.

If we write

The council ruled as to the lack of any scientific or other objectively determined merit or efficacy for Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT) -- or other forms of AK. The International Collger of Applied Kinesiology does not consider PMRT or BDORT to be forms of Applied Kinesiology as neither are AK sanctioned techniques.

That doesn't create new history. Does that sound like I'm revisiting the Tribunal's decision or fighting over the definition?

[edit] Request for Comments

[edit] Comments by Involved Editors

[edit] Comment by Anthon01 (talk · contribs)

We disagree on use of alternative and complementary medicine as a generic term and disagree on significance of Tribunal findings vs. expert witnesses.

Text in Question is the beginning of the article.

Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB, of Hamilton, New Zealand, was found guilty of Professional Misconduct and Disgraceful Conduct in 2003,[1] by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in Wellington, which drew upon expert witnesses to consider the application of complementary and alternative medicine (CAM). The council ruled as to the lack of any scientific or other objectively determined merit or efficacy for Peak Muscle Resistance Testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as Bi-Digital O-Ring Testing (BDORT) -- and other forms of Applied Kinesiology.(AK)

  • Were expert witnesses called to consider the application of complementary and alternative medicine or PMRT?
In addition the citation states the purpose of the expert testimony is to consider PMRT, not CAM:

THE EVIDENCE ABOUT PEAK MUSCLE RESISTANCE TESTING (PMRT)
279. The issue of PMRT is important because the various charges allege that Dr Gorringe relied “unduly” on it in treating Mrs Short and Ms Ghaemmaghamy.

Is the utilization of CAM instead of PMRT, a WP:NOR issue, and introducing bias (WP:NPOV) against CAM by insinuation? --Anthon01 (talk) 14:49, 26 November 2007 (UTC)
  • We also disagree on balance. The findings of the Tribunal and expert testimony are conflated as 'council ruled' in the second sentence. This gives equal weight to the Tribunals findings and to the testimony of one expert. Would it be better balanced if the findings and the presentation of expert witnesses were separated? The Tribunal listed finding in regards to PMRT but not Applied Kinesiology(AK). One expert witness briefly mentions Applied Kinesiology, but his focus is on PMRT.-- Anthon01 (talk) 20:36, 25 November 2007 (UTC)
In addition, we have the the listing of the case and its outcome in the notable Journal of the New Zealand Medical Association which mentions PMRT, but not Applied Kinesiology. --Anthon01 (talk) 17:09, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comment by Crum375 (talk · contribs)

An important issue here is the application of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH. There was a malpractice hearing held in New Zealand for Gorringe, the subject of this article. Cannell, an expert witness who was called and endorsed by the tribunal, testified in connection to the Gorringe hearing that, for example, BDORT is a form of AK. Let's assume some other source, say from an AK related organization, not related to the Gorringe hearing and which does not mention Gorringe, disagrees that BDORT is a form of AK. The policy questions: Would including the other source, that does not mention Gorringe, as a reference showing that the tribunal's expert was wrong, a form of SYNTH, hence violating WP:SYNTH? Isn't it effectively retrying the hearing on the pages of Wikipedia hence violating WP:NOR? Crum375 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Comments by respondents to this RFC

I've come here as a respondent to the RfC. I don't feel that the sentence including the reference to alternative and complementary medicine is correct as it stands. If the phrase is to be included, why not say that the techniques used by Gorringe are classified as a form of alternative/complementary medicine - if there is a citation for that. The article seems to me to be too short given that there is more than one reliable source. Italics are used incorrectly in it. Itsmejudith (talk) 14:10, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Agree with Crum375. The council didn't find what the article claims they found. We're drawing new conclusions, and it's a SYNTH problem. I also agree with Itsmejudith's assessment of the article generally. Cool Hand Luke 01:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] WP:SYNTH

I have reverted this edit per WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR. Let me start by trying to explain SYNTH as it applies to this issue generically.

Assume that we have a Wikipedia article on subject S, and that we have a reliable source R1 telling us that S belongs to category C. In such a case, we are allowed to state that per source R1, S belongs to category C.

Now, let's say there is another reliable source R2, that defines the eligibility criteria for category C, but does not specifically mention subject S. And let's say we have an editor, who personally feels that according to the criteria spelled out in R2, S does not belong to category C, despite R1's assertion.

Here is the crux of WP:SYNTH: unless we have a reliable source making the point for us that S does not belong to C, we may not do so ourselves as editors. The most we can do is link to the Wikipedia article on category C, which presumably will include the eligibility criteria per source R2, but we may not perform the eligibility analysis ourselves as editors, as that would violate WP:SYNTH and WP:NOR.

Now in our specific case, we have a reliable source telling us that BDORT and PMRT are effectively equivalent, and the source also tells us that BDORT/PMRT is a form of AK. If we had a reliable source that told us that BDORT/PMRT is not AK, disputing the first source, then we could present that dispute in the article. But in this case, we don't have a reliable source specifically disputing the first one. That we may have a reliable source telling us what AK is generically is not useful, as we need a reliable source telling us specifically that BDORT/PMRT is not AK.

Questions or comments are welcome. Crum375 (talk) 21:26, 7 December 2007 (UTC)