Deletion of Bioregulatory medicine (2nd nomination)

Comment: I agree with the concerns already outlined by the nominator. With the synthesised material stripped away, all that remains in this article is essentially a claim that bioregulatory medicine is notable by virtue of there being some associations that are concerned with this across several continents. I looked at the UK-based site. It claims to maintain a specialist register, although in the UK regulation of doctors is something that falls to the General Medical Council, including specialist registers. There is not a single mention of "bioregulatory" on the GMC website. There are other types of practitioners with voluntary register that are looked after by the Professional Standards Authority, but again not a single mention there either. Looking at the website of the UK bioregulatory foundation, it is run by a organisation that has changed its name several times and is currently the biomedic foundation. It is registered with the Charity Commission and has a declared income of around £50,000 a year. http://apps.charitycommission.gov.uk/Showcharity/RegisterOfCharities/CharityWithoutPartB.aspx?RegisteredCharityNumber=1052731&SubsidiaryNumber=0 Other parts of this UK bioregulatory website refer to a limited company. Profiles of the people associated suggest the company deals with selling educational materials aimed at an alternative medicine audience. So I think  applies here too
Stance: delete
Cited policy: Wikipedia:Fringe theories (:WP:FRINGE)