Talk:BDORT/Archive 1

message: The following comment by  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Comment merged from older [[Talk:Yoshiaki Omura]] prior to merge 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: * 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)
thread_title: First comments

message: 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)
thread_title:  Please clarify 

message: 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.
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)

text: 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)
thread_title:  Organ tissue 

message: 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 <BR>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12934957&dopt=Abstract<BR>
http://members.at.infoseek.co.jp/MOHKI/4thSympoabst.htm<BR>
http://pfarber.sites.uol.com.br/atualizacao.htm<BR>
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=1674834&dopt=Abstract<BR>
http://bdort.net/pdf/6thSympoEngAbst.pdf<BR>
http://bdort.net/en/abstracts.htm<BR>
http://bdort.net/en/2stinter.htm<BR>
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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Selection of '''Published scientific papers''' 

message: 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)
thread_title: Question

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  AND, the world is FLAT ! 

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Reply by --[[User:RichardMalter|RichardMalter]] 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) and '''CURRENT SUMMARY OF EDIT DISPUTE''' ''please do not edit this comment''

message: 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)
thread_title: Comment

message: 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)
thread_title: Policies

message: 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." 
So it seems he's this Phillip Shinnick.   SlimVirgin (talk) 15:03, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Shinnick

message: : '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 .
:: '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)
thread_title: Professor Mark Bryden Cannell

message: Would an addition to the Omura and/or BDORT entries with this seem appropriate?  ? Fucyfre 00:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Evident New Omura BDORT-Related Patent Application – Special Solar Energy Stored Paper 

message: 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]" 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  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)
replies: text: OK, I found some here via google. Crum375 12:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

text: 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)

text: Please note my questions embedded above. Crum375 12:52, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Richard Malter's comments/replies

message: 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 , 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Clarifying where there is POV in this article

message: 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)
thread_title: Evaluating "BDORT has not been accepted by the mainstream community"

message: Richard, I notice that you added the  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)
thread_title: Unilateral change to ''not been accepted'' in article

message: 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)
thread_title:  Sartor Resartus Redux