Talk:BDORT/Mediation/Archive 2

message: As I stated before, my name is Andy and I represent the Mediation Cabal.  I am here as an unbiased party to help you reach consensus about the best possible content for this article.  All I know about this subject of the article is what I have read in the article and its related pages.  A couple things to agree to right off the bat:
;What are the requirements for this article?
* Neutral point of view - review WP:NPOV
* Verifiable - review WP:V
Anything that does not fit BOTH of those requirements does not belong here.  These are not my requirements - they are Wikipedia policies.  
;What is appropriate conduct for this mediation?
* Assume good faith - review WP:AGF
* Remain civil - review WP:CIVIL
;Instructions
Sign below with a bullet and your signature that you agree to what I have written above.  I consider these to be essential for the success of mediation; everything else can and will be negotiated. Do not post anything else yet! I will proceed when I have everyone's agreement.
* --Aguerriero (talk) 22:05, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Welcome 

message: All right!  Now that everyone is aboard, we can set about agreeing to an approach toward resolving conflicts on this page.  From reading the page, its history, and its talk page, it is clear that most or all of it has come into contention at some point. Bearing that in mind, I propose the following approach:
I will start a heading here for each section of the article, beginning with the lead paragraph.  The heading will contain a "sandbox" version of the section that you can edit without disrupting the main article. The heading will also contain discussion of the neutrality and verifiability of the passage. I expect that the reliability of each citation will be critically analyzed if it is called into question. 
;Sound good?
If everyone agrees, we can proceed.  If you don't agree, please propose and alternate approach for everyone to consider. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:28, 18 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Approach 

message: I have no objection to any of the cites in the article at present as they are presently employed, ie, cites of Omura and ‘alternative’ journals such as ‘Medical Acupuncture’ are acceptable only for citing what claims are made – not for the validity of those claims.
:To that end, please also list any citations whose application you dispute. --Aguerriero (talk) 02:16, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcsincostan 

message: Citations that should be reviewed:
*  4 - would prefer a reference that says pseudoscience, not entirely convinced this citation should be used for description of quackery.
* 14 - agree, doesn't appear to be working
Addhoc 11:00, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Addhoc 

message: I think that, as Arcsincostan says, we must be careful to separate the purpose of each source as we establish its reliability. For example and specifically, the Omura BODRT articles are sufficiently reliable IMO to represent Omura's claims about BDORT, but are absolutely not reliable as acceptable scientific validation or evaluation of BDORT. Similarly for Solar Papers and other Omura claims.
In general, I agree with the sources as currently used in the article. I think the main missing component is in the wording stage, where IMO we must clarify near each claim that this claim has not been scientifically evaluated, except in the NZ Tribunal report. My concern is that a casual reader may only read the claim and miss the disclaimers that appear elsewhere in the article, possibly in a different section, and may be misled into believing that WP is supporting these claims by stating them in an uncontested fashion. Crum375 01:50, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crum375 

message: contest:
a) #4 Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant. Reason: inferred WP:OR citation only; no direct quotation for derogatory term used.
b) #14 ^ Dominic Lu, quoted on Yoshiaki Omura's Japanese web site. Reason: info used is WP:OR.
c) #6 Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand findings in re Richard Gorringe and the PMRT/Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. - citation OK. Reason: selectively quoted from object to. Also WP:OR using this citation object to.
Citations to add:
A) Shinnick et al Research: http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html. 
B) Printed published material: Manaka use and opinon of BDORT: Manaka, Yoshio, Chasing the Dragon's Tail: The Theory and Practice of Acupuncture in the Work of Yoshio Manaka, Paradigm Publications 1995, page 142.
C) http://www.ecim-europe.info/bdort/?p=yu_bdort&lang=en. Usage citation of BDORT in Europe.
D) O RING TEST CLINIC in Japan, usage citation: http://www.baobab.or.jp/~oring/e_basis.shtml.
E) http://pfarber.sites.uol.com.br/ORT98.htm. Usage and test of BDORT in Brazil.
F) http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-2649479432793723588&q=Bi+digital+o-ring+test. Video presentation of dentist having used selective drug uptake enhancment method.
G) Published paper. 'Preventive effect of  Coriandrum sativum (Chinese parsley) on localized 
lead deposition in ICR mice.  ' 
J Ethnopharmacol 2001  Oct;77(2-3):203-8 (ISSN: 0378-8741)  
Aga M; Iwaki K; Ueda Y;  Ushio S; Masaki N; Fukuda S; Kimoto T; Ikeda M; 
Kurimoto M ,Hayashibara  Biochemical Laboratories, Inc., Fujisaki Institute, 675-1 
Fujisaki, Okayama  702-8006, Japan.  -- paper confirms Omura's finding of effect of coriander as mercury removing agent; before Omura mentioned this effect, there is no report of coriander's property in this regard. ie Omura discoverer (via BDORT).
Richardmalter 04:07, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Richardmalter 

message: I’m afraid I need clarification as to how Richard uses the term ‘original research’ before I can meaningfully address his desired cites and deletions. Arcsincostan 00:23, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arcsincostan 

message: Could you provide more information about B and G. In the case of G, could you advise whether you are proposing to state this was discovered by BDORT? Addhoc 11:34, 20 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: See my comments in my section and in the sub page about that paper. Crum375 11:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably we should start a new header as following the thread is getting tricky. Anyway, regarding B, this seems fairly ok, essentially in my understanding, Yoshiaki Omura invented a procedure that gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications, but this procedure didn't gain widespread acceptance in conventional medicine. Regarding G, I don't have any problem with the concept that a herb has medicinal benefits. However, the link to BDORT appears to be slender. What reliable source provides this linkage? Addhoc 14:55, 21 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addhoc

message: Ok, regarding the areas of contention:
*	"PMRT" cannot be used interchangeably with the term "BDORT" - agree with suggested approach of "Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT".
*	Usage of this citation could be original research - agree this is a reliable secondary source.
*	Citation has been selectively quoted to use only negative information - would consider quoting the prosecution, but not the defence to be inappropriate, quoting only the findings however, should be ok.
Regarding Aguerriero's suggestions:
*	Agree WP:OR is not applicable.
*	Agree could mention two instead of three times, however not very enthusiastic about your wording Aguerriero, would suggest instead "procedure that has gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications, but has not gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine".
*	I think your wording is a definite improvement, my only suggestion would be to use the past tense throughout.
*	I think Richard has indicated we should mention that Yoshiaki Omura was not invited to the tribunal. Considering the advice in WP:BLP, I think we should go along with this.
Addhoc 17:09, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Addhoc's comments

message: Aguerriero, I got your reminder re organization, sure 100%, apologies :).
Generally I agree with things and the tenor of it. Just a few points need addressing:
OK re the WP:OR. OK re moving down and renaming.
Yes, of course realize this is 'negative' commentary; but not entirely:
OK re this: The BDORT procedure has been the subject of criticism from several sources (citations here - use ones already used in the article that support this statement), as well as likened to other procedures that have been the subject of medical tribunals. (citations).
But to fill out the (unbaised) picture of characterization and context in the lead in we need to add in this bit (something like) Addhoc's:
Yoshiaki Omura invented the BDORT that gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications, but this procedure hasn't gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine.
Just lumping the two paras together would be OK I think, so (roughly):
Yoshiaki Omura invented the BDORT that gained acceptance amongst professional acupuncturists, including some with medical qualifications (citations used in text below), but this procedure hasn't gained widespread acceptance in conventional medicine. The BDORT procedure has been the subject of criticism from several sources (citations here), as well as likened to other procedures that have been the subject of medical tribunals. (citations used in text below).
But before that is finally complete, we need to evaluate the other citations we haven't go to yet, because I will argue to add that, . .. acceptance by some medical professionals (ie MDs who are not acupuncturists, dentists) etc. If citations allowed. 
But happy to go with above for now!  
Next point.
Not entirely OK re this: Dr. Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner from New Zealand, uses a procedure called Peak Muscle Resistance Training (PMRT), which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT (citations here). The tribunal examined his methods and found that the use of PMRT to make medical diagnoses is "unacceptable and irresponsible". (citation here)
. . .First because they did not actually test anything, they gave their opinion. So re final wording suggest: the Tribunial gave their opinion that. ..
. . and because, Re selective quoting, this is what I have argued should be included, it is direct quote from the prosecution:
"it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent". [line,para citation]
This is clearly differentiating. But later I acknowledge as plain fact that they lump BDORT together with PMRT [many citations]; which is potentially confusing.  I think Crum375 got it just right previously, when said that (my wording now):
The Tribunial gave opinion on PMRT generically. 
That's why I drafted previously: 
The Tribunial noted at an early stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent". However, the Tribunal, considered the BDORT to be generically a form of PMRT and examined and dismissed any claims of scientific validity of Peak Muscle Resistance Testing, offering the following summary statement of findings:  etc
So to make clear what I am saying, I dont object to which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand has asserted is substantively identical to the BDORT , as it is factual, but just needs that other quote worked in beforehand for chronological sense.
Something like:
Dr. Richard Gorringe, a medical practitioner from New Zealand, used his variation of Peak Muscle Resistance Training (PMRT), which the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand considered in the course of malpractice hearings against Gorringe. The Tribunial noted at an earlier stage in the proceedings that "it would appear . . that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent"(citation).  However, the Tribunial later gave opinion on PMRT generically, and asserted that PMRT is substantively identical to the BDORT (citations here), and that the use of PMRT to make medical diagnoses is "unacceptable and irresponsible". (citation here)
The last point is about the expertize question. Omura et al do explicitly state that the key mechanism of the BDORT is electromagnetic/ism (EM). They are talking at a level of EM (whether reality or fictitious) well above any of the Tribunial experts or any regular MD. So I would like comment on this please. Basically I am saying that the wording cannot correctly suggest that the Tribunial was capable or did actually 'hands-on' evaluate the BDORT mechanism. Which is why:
The Tribunial gave opinion on PMRT generically is what I am arguing is all we can accurately say they actually did (as above). Which is being really accurate (which I equate to NPOV).  
Is there a WP:OK way to add that they were not experts to actually evaluate the BDORT claimed mechanisms, that could be added in somewhere?
Richardmalter 23:26, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Awesome, thanks for your responses.  Your assertions are very reasonable and I'm sure we will reach agreement quickly on this particular citation.  Just waiting for Crum375 to weigh in.  As to your last question, I will work on wording it in such a way as to merely state that the tribunal used PMRT and BDORT interchangeably in places, but that they didn't really possess the information necessary to make that judgement. --Aguerriero (talk) 01:50, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I should be able to comment in a day or so. Thanks, Crum375 01:55, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Yes, very positive discussion, thanks also. Addhoc 13:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Malter's comments

message: I think the effective equivalence between PMRT and BDORT usage in the NZ report is not an issue, as it is accepted by Richard Malter. I also think that we agree that the NZ report ended up lumping BDORT/PMRT and specifically the somewhat variant technique practiced by Gorringe in one generic basket, and I think Richard agrees with that also.
I would emphasize the final report's summary results and conclusions, with the citations we have in the article. I would also clarify that although the Tribunal recognized that the specific technique used by Gorringe was a BDORT variant, its final report includes it in the same generic class as BDPRT. Regarding Richard's issue of 'expertise', as I have noted elsewhere, this is a medical issue decided by a recognized government board. They have access to all the experts and expertise they need, in their opinion, to reach their conclusions. Therefore, given their credentials, I see no reason to question the scientific level of their results, unless we can find a properly sourced critique of their report, which we could then cite. Crum375 02:26, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, I think we agree that the NZ Tribunal (NZT) consider PMRT and BDORT equivalent for their purposes, despite what they consider minor variations. It is clear that the NZT did not perform their own scientific study or research - that is not their purpose or goal. Their job is to see if there is proper scientific justification for the procedures, and like us at WP they came up empty - there is no known credible scientific study proving the safety or efficacy of either PMRT or BDORT (which again they consider equivalent or synonymous). In medical science, it is not like the legal justice system where you are considered 'innocent until proven guilty' - you must reliably prove efficacy and safety of a medical procedure, drug or device prior to promoting it to and using it on the public. It is the lack of such proof of efficacy and safety that the NZT are decrying, and they consider the use of unproven techniques, in lieu of established and proven ones, to be 'irresponsible' - this is why they fined Gorringe (who is a 'medical practitioner' not a doctor to my knowledge), stripped him of his license, etc. Again,  all the NZT needed is to find a reliable source that proves the efficacy of PMRT/BDORT, and they didn't - they don't need to be research scientists to be able to say that no such source exists. Crum375 14:08, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

text: I think we will be able to address this in a satisfactory manner; later today I will post revised suggested rewrites that reflect everyone's concerns, and we will see if everyone agrees on them.  Thanks! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:04, 24 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Crum375's comments

message: Gentlemen, just letting you know that I will be leaving tomorrow on holiday, returning on Tuesday, September 5.  I won't have internet access so I will have to take a break from our noble efforts.  If you wish, you can take initiative to open discussion sections on other citations (just copy my format) or just take a break likewise.  Carry on! --Aguerriero (talk) 14:38, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have been asked by Andy to keep an eye on this mediation and handle any questions you might have etc. while he's away. - CrazyRussian talk/email 15:35, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Off-topic