Talk:BDORT/Archive 4

message: It has come to the attention of many individuals, both in and out of the medical field, 
that there have been erroneous postings on Wikipedia with regards to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test
developed and patented by Yoshiaki Omura, M.D., Sc.D..   The motives and identities of those 
who posted erroneous and discrediting information contradicting the available facts about this
test and about Dr. Omura are not the purpose of this posting.
     
The purpose of this posting is to inform the reader of the efficacy of this test.  In 
pursuing a U.S. patent on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), Dr. Omura, had to provide 
evidence of the efficacy of this test to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.  This 
evidence was provided by affidavits taken under oath under penalty of imprisonment if a false 
statement is made.
     
The following individuals provided affidavits in support of the efficacy of Dr. Omura’s 
invention.  These affidavits are part of the extensive evaluation history of Dr. Omura’s U.S. 
patent.  Moreover, the evaluation history of the patent is open for public inspection upon 
request to the United States Patent and Trademark Office.
     
The following well-established individuals from the U.S. and Japan provided affidavits 
under oath with clinical evidence supporting the efficacy of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Also 
provided are the credentials for each affiant.  Some of these people have impeccable 
credentials from both the U.S. and Japan.  
*Yasuhiro Shimotsuura, M.D., Leader of Digestive Organ Research at Kurume University School of Medicine and Director of Medicine at St. Maria’s Hospital, the 2nd largest hospital in Japan
*Chifuyu Takeshige, M.D., Ph.D., Prof. & Chairman of the Dept. of Physiology and Dean of Showa University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan, and former Visiting Scholar of Dept. of Physiology at University of Pennsylvania
*Maja Tcherkezova, M.D., National Institute of Neurology in Sophia, Bulgaria
*Brother Michael Losco, Assistant Prof. of Electrical Engineering at Manhattan College
*Takesuke Muteki, M.D., Ph.D., Prof. & Chairman of the Dept. of Anesthesiology at Kurume University Medical School in Japan
*Noryuki Tani, D.D.S., Associate Prof. at Seijo Dental School in Japan
*Albert Cooke, M.D., Prof. and former Chairman of Dept. of Neurosurgery at New York Downstate Medical Center in Brooklyn
*Jason Shu, OBGYN, Member of State Board of Medicine at Pennsylvania State
*Joel Friedman, D.D.S., Prof. of Dentistry at New York University
*Hiroaki Nakajima, M.D., Ph.D., Director of Pulmonary Division and Associate Prof. of the Dept. of Internal Medicine of Showa University School of Medicine in Tokyo, Japan and he was also former Visiting Prof. at Mayo Clinic
*Simon Freed, Ph.D., Research Scientist of Brookhaven National Laboratory and Prof. of Neurology and Prof. of Biochemistry at New York Medical College
     
Some of the information described in the affidavits are also documented in the well-known 
television science documentary on the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, from Tokai Television Station 
from Nagoya City, which consists of two-30 minute series documentary (comparable to NOVA in the 
USA).  The English versions of the documentaries are also available for English-speaking people.      
   
     
In addition to the 11 affiants cited above, readers are directed to the Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal,  of which Dr. Omura is the founder and editor-in-chief.  On the board of the journal, there are many notable physicians listed who are chairmen of departments of major universities, including Prof. Bjorn Nordenstorm-former Chairman of the Nobel Prize Committee, and former deans of medical schools, many of whom participated in the symposium organized by Dr. Omura and his associates in Japan and U.S.A. 
     
I would like to end this with a quote from the famous founder of Sony, Mr. Masaru Ibuka, who served as the honorary President of the Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society. Mr. Ibuka also encouraged some of his close associates to study and evaluate the validity and application of the BDORT.   Mr. Ibuka was very interested in and satisfied with what he and his associates found of the BDORT.  Mr. Ibuka described Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in his auto-biography and also made the following public statement:
     
“The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is a necessary tool for the paradigm shift from 20th century medicine to 21st century medicine.”
Either engage in debate or be quiet. Addhoc 11:25, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another View

message: Abbaenok, I am assuming you are a new Wikipedia (WP) user, so please be sure to carefully review our posting policies. I also left you a message in your Talk page, that I hope you have read.
Be sure that when you post in this Discussion page, you:
#post to the end of the page, not the beginning
#only mention facts that are corroborated by verifiable reliable sources. 
Note that reliable sources cannot be sources that are owned by or related to Dr. Omura, such as his journal or Web sites, unless we are adding some minor CV details. Anything that attempts to verify his extraordinary claims must have an extraordinary proof in the form of an independent, neutral and highly reliable mainstream medical body or publication. If you make reference to the NZ Tribunal report, which we do consider very reliable, please do us a big favor and read the entire discussion history here on the Talk page (including the Archives), as we analyzed that report very carefully. We specifically noted that although the Tribunal recognized that Gorringe's specific version of BDORT/PMRT varied from Omura's, the Tribunal ruled on BDORT/PMRT generically, and its statement about BDORT/PMRT relates to the generic method, not Gorringe's variant. Again, as an Encyclopedia we are not interested in original research, or personal knowledge or anything that is not clearly sourced from secondary neutral sources. Clearly a BDORT focused site is not a neutral site for evaluating BDORT, even if it met all other criteria. Thanks, Crum375 20:15, 1 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Response to Abbaenok

message: Advanced degrees give authority in the topic of the degree. Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing.[]. In fact, the Tribunial expert cannot be claimed at all to be experts in evaluating the BDORT. Any half-learned medicine man can tell you that living cells are electromagentically sensitive to unbelievably small electromagnetic fields [Becker et al]; that glands such as the pineal gland can prompt a cascade of chemical reactions is primary school stuff. That these can affect muscle strength is kindergarden play material. They got the wrong experts. --Richardmalter 10:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, I have argued very specifically on WP criteria, for many weeks, just short of being blue in the face, to no avail with you, as you decided that I am 'biased'. Therefore, I will simply choose the version that seems closest to WP requirements to me. Right now, as one sample point, as I repeated in the past countless times, the NZ report is the only valid scientific review of BDORT in the article, and hence it should be presented upfront, right in the lead in paragraph. Crum375 12:15, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 'Under deletion policy, I am fairly constrained to consider the course of the debate at the AfD, and cannot give much (if any) weight to talk page comments.  This is what I did.  However, my comments at the AfD are not at all binding on the course of the article; AfD only concludes whether an article should be kept or deleted (sometimes together with a limited set of options of the type of keep to be employed: eg. Merge, Redirect, etc.)  I stand behind my rationale because I do believe it is the reasonable thing to conclude impartially from the AfD debate, but my remarks on Dr. Omura's repute are not at all binding -- I was only explaining how I came to conclude that the article should be kept.  In a way, my remark was a "worst-case senario": even if this man is a charlatan, he still belongs in our encyclopedia.  Now that the article has been kept, it is up to you and other editors more knowledgeable on the subject to flesh out on the talk page how credible (or not) the doctor is, based on evidence available.  In that endeavor, my comments are utterly irrelevant -- and if anyone says differently, do feel free to quote me on that. :)  Best wishes, Xoloz 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: *The comment in question: 'The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious. Xoloz 17:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: WP CRITERIA FIRST

message: Omura's armamentarium and researches is transparently a faith-based or magical belief system. Their notions of evidence and logic are those of True Believers. They are not subject to falsification and have demonstrated no interest whatsoever in actually attempting to establish a scientific as opposed to pseudoscientific claim to validity, eagerly clutching at the mantle of 'scientific' authority all the way. Personally, if I were in need of an alternative approach of this sort, I'd simply seek out a Qi master and avoid the scientific mumbo jumbo. There might be something there, even if it has no claim to 'science.' As to Omura, to steal from a daughter of Baltimore on the subject of Oakland . . . 'There's no there there.'
As to the character of this discussion: It's effectively pointless. The proponents of the faith of Omura will argue endlessly that it is scientific truth that the sun stood still in the sky, that the Virgin Mary gave virgin birth to the son of God, and that Omura will be able to guarantee you'll live forever if only you'll apply Special Solar Energy Stored Paper to the top of your head periodically. – Perhaps I exaggerate slightly.
If anyone of good faith and sound mind cares to discuss the entry in this space, I, for my part, will, if I see it, be prepared to discuss the matter in future. Arcsincostan 16:43, 3 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faith-Based or Magical Belief Systems 

message: Crum375, you give opinion that Arcs, version seems to you WP:OK when it very clearly is not even close to it on many points that I have documented repeatedly. Your notion of using it as a basis for change has no hope. You tried to do this before, and I trusted you, which turned out to be very unproductive. But to take the essence of what you are saying, we would have to get down to a bare minimum article that was agreed on all round and then follow your suggestion. Other than that is nonsense. You selectively ignore WP criteria. Repeatedly. You select WP criteria that suits you and however much I ask you to define and then I present material that satisfies the WP criteria you then come up with arguments against anything you dont like. As they say here, 'its not on'. Consider my suggestion please. Also I suggest you dont expect me to stop reverting when you do the same thing without a justifiable WP reason. Its just like you making unilateral changes to the article (which I had to press you long to finally admitt) and then soon after asking no one else to make unilateral changes!! 
1) Experts not in right field - opinion only useful since they mention BDORT 1.5) We cant selectively quote Tribunial to make people happy - censorship not allowed on WP. 2) Shinnick material WP OK 100% - affects way other info can be described of course, like any other info that bears on other info. 3) Arc's WP:OR not OK. Description not correct. Repeated info not OK. Repeated "not proven" lines not OK. Non-citated info not OK. --Richardmalter 00:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Selectively applying WP criteria and ignoring when dislike 'not on'

message: There is no reasoning with faith. There is no reasoning with the faith of Omura's adherents and proponents. Such, at least, is my judgement, and I will no longer engage in the attempt. If anyone has any material that rises to the level of respectability, I'll be more than happy to consider and discuss it, as I harbor no illusion of inerrancy or infallibility. I will not, however, argue endlessly with delusion, with madness. If that's an 'attack' that violates Wikipedia criteria, tough. Arcsincostan 01:34, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faith 

message: Then, since no one here is coming up with WP reasons to delete WP OK material; nor WP reasons for keeping not WP OK material, the only thing to do from a WP perspective is revert to a more WP OK version.--Richardmalter 02:32, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: Endless repitition simply underscores the fact that you folks don't actually have any credible research to cite to bolster your claims. It proves the critics' point, not yours. If you insist on clinging to your Faith, that's your privilege. Just don't expect othes to want to share the Kool-Aid.
*Look, dude, you and your folks are seriously arguing or at least arguing that Omura's research in Brazil was reputable scientific blah-blah-blah. That was 'research' in which he 'scientifically' determined via BDORT that PSYCHIC HEALING was real and worked via Qi and Acupuncture. What planet was this research actually conducted on? Arcsincostan 03:03, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Shinnick et al research WP Reliable, Neutral, MD peer-reviewed, established 

message: In the end, with all sympathy for the nobler aspects of this experiment and the efforts of those involved, I think this entry illustrates the limitations of this process. One presumes that at some point, hopefully soon, Wikipedia will fork into a more reliable form or forms. For my part, I would hope so, because I think the ideal of accessibility and collaboration is a worthy one. I've given you a good entry. See if you can keep it, and, better still, improve it.
:tealcyfre aka Arcsincostan 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: In the end, with all sympathy for the nobler aspects of this experiment and the efforts of those involved, I think this entry illustrates the limitations of this process. One presumes that at some point, hopefully soon, Wikipedia will fork into a more reliable form or forms. For my part, I would hope so, because I think the ideal of accessibility and collaboration is a worthy one. I've given you a good entry. See if you can keep it, and, better still, improve it.
:tealcyfre aka Arcsincostan 03:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikipedia 

message: Richard, you are again in violation of the WP:3RR rule. As you know, each such violation can lead to blocking, and multiple ones may lead to prolonged blocks.
Regarding the lead section, I think you are simply confused. The lead section is everything from the beginning of the article until the first section. Our first section is the 'BDORT test'. Normally for non-trivial articles the lead-in and the first section are separated by the TOC, as in our article.
So as of now, your version is simply unacceptable. 
For convenience in counting, here is your latest 3RR violation sequence:
:Original version: 11:16, August 5, 2006
#revert on 02:28, August 6, 2006 
#revert on 11:52, August 6, 2006
#revert on 12:17, August 6, 2006
#revert on 23:31, August 6, 2006
This is your second 3RR violation in the last few days, and IIRC you were already blocked once previously.
Crum375 00:21, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Seconded, ditto, or words to that effect. While I don't share Crum375's optimism as to ultimate outcome given our differences in assessment as to WP's chances of penultimate if not indeed ultimate (is there an ultimate?) success, I'll do what I can, time and other commitments permitting. Matter of principle and all that foofaraw ;) Arcsincostan 01:47, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ps: Dontcha luv it when a person who thinks you're wrong tries to prove you right? ;) Arcsincostan 02:00, 7 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[WP:3RR]] 

message: Are, granted, in my estimation profound. They are not likely so profound, however, as to prove a sustained point of entry for a coterie of delusional pseudoscientific claimants attempting to reassure themselves, if not the world, that they are of consequence other than to themselves.
Translation: Put up or shut up.
Arcsincostan 06:12, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikpedia's Limitations . . . 

message: To keep the situation very clear: you et al are pushing a version that:
1) selectively quotes from a report (to fit a bias); does not contain direct quotes that do not fit that bias from the very same source. This is usually termed censorship.
2) has factually incorrect description of the BDORT - the main topic after the bio.
3) is full of non(WP)-citated, WP:OR, whole swaths and paragraphs of it.
4) omitts established discussed ,WP Reliable, Neutral, USA Board Certified MD peer-reviewed info: Shinnick info, becuase it doesn't fit the bias. Also omitting Manaka info for same reasons.
5) Uses expert testimony from experts not on the right subject, based on Crum375's "belief" etc
If you can refute any of the above, please do; but please dont make general statements, make your case for why for eg: you thing WP Neutral, Reliable material should not be included? 
Specifically address the material concerned. 
Why incorrect information should be included? 
Why WP:OR should be included?
Please attempt to do this if you think you can. You are pushing a version that is as I describe it above - this is completely contrary to stated written WP criteria. 
These are the specific points I am waiting for the mediation Cabal to help out with.
--Richardmalter 11:22, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP Criteria need to be followed 

message: Seem in every way fine to me. The entry is now more clearly presented than ever, and lets the facts, as sourced, speak for themselves. Arcsincostan 15:38, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fully agree with you about neutrality and sourcing. So if a person makes an incredible-sounding claim for which we have no reliable source, we would normally drop the claim. However, if the person happens to be the subject of the article, and the incredible claim happens to be his claim-to-fame, then the situation is different, since we can't just drop the claim. In that situation, either we include a reliable source that substantiates the claim, or alternatively we (as WP) state that no such substantiating source could be found. Once such a source is found, that disclaimer will go. If anyone sees it differently, please feel free to comment. Crum375 16:41, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

text: As I understand it,  is just a temporary crutch, and is highly discouraged. In principle, an item should either be there or not, but not be there with the . In our own case, the issue is that we have a claim that is not substantiated by reliable sources, but we must include it since the article is about the claim or the claimer. Hence we are forced to state a claim that has no acceptable backup. In such as case, we must include a statement to "make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy." (see WP:RS). Crum375 17:46, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no firm position on this as of yet. Only tentative. Question: Is the overall balance and tenor of the entry such that there is no need for an item-by-item statement that no reliable evidence has as yet been found or indeed known to exist? Is it necessary or best to include such with effectively every item? Is this sort of question best left to the entry as a whole? Arcsincostan 18:04, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent Addhoc Edits 

message: Richard, this is another violation of WP:3RR. As you know, you can be blocked for prolonged periods for multiple 3RR viloations:
:Original version: 13:35, August 7, 2006
#Revert: 22:15, August 7, 2006
#Revert: 05:35, August 8, 2006
#Revert: 11:32, August 8, 2006
#Revert: 21:12, August 8, 2006
#Revert: 21:25, August 8, 2006
I hope this is clear enough. Crum375 22:10, 8 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another [[WP:3RR]] 

message: I've just attempted to sharpen focus of the sections on Selective Drug Uptake and Special Solar Energy to see if that might of itself at least in part address the 'disclaimer' issue. More than open to any thoughts or suggestions as to whether or not they in any way actually help address the perceived issue. Arcsincostan 06:23, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Focus?

message: Crum375, It seems you are now just being a vandal. You delete my edits which were citated etc, with no explanation whatsoever. This is just called censorship.-
Crum375, we have been through these points, and in each case  you had to resort to "belief" etc - since it was a case of QED each time after we argued through and you could not come up with any kind of WP reasoning against any of the points. The problem for you was you did not like it, that is all. All you can do is threaten rules instead. Because two of you can out-revert me; not much ethic there is there. 
I'll wait for mediation to stop this. A stable article will never result from this though. If necessary we will go as far as needed with mediation.  --Richardmalter 07:19, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try looking up the word 'edit.' Arcsincostan 08:48, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Petulance and wounded pride constitute a limited form of argument. Arcsincostan 08:56, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  CENSORSHIP 

message: I'm out. Arcsincostan 08:57, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Closure 

message: I have made some changes and removed some disputed sections. The result is there is substantially less difference between the two parallel versions . Could we agree a compromise version to prevent this edit warring that discourages other users? Addhoc 13:15, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Compromise version 

message: I have devoted what time and effort I have devoted to date to the shaping of this entry as a matter of principle. I cannot, however, transcend the limitations of this process. Let the cards fall as they will.
I’m out. Arcsincostan 04:29, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Out 

message: Is there a diagram or photo showing the BDORT technique? Personally, as someone who is new to this subject, it wasn't immediately obvious what the technique involved. Addhoc 11:02, 12 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image 

message: Add, I think you ought be congratulated. You've produced an advocacy piece for Omura. I'm sure Jimbo would be proud. My congratulations. Arcsincostan 01:45, 13 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jimbo Would Be Proud 

message: To all interested parties: please proceed to Talk:Yoshiaki Omura/Mediation and review what I have written, and sign.  I will proceed once I have everyone's agreement.  For the sake of organization, everything mediation-related will now be discussed on that subpage.  Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 22:06, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Opening Mediation