Talk:BDORT/Archive 5

message: :I've added comments to the statement below. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As far as I know, patent acceptance, even after a thorough investigation by the US Patent Office, is only a sign of the plausibility of the invention or process since the office lacks the resources to conduct thorough reviews. Peer-reviewed and published research is the authoritative test for scientific research. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I suspect you are alluding to the policy of [undue weight]. Whether these citations belong depends on whether and the degree to which pseudoscience evidence is accepted by authoritatively sources or conversely whether research on the subject is accepted by them. Agreed, a scattershot web search for published research isn't sufficient for this. On the other hand, a literature search of scholarly article databases is definitely relevant and in accord with the scientific philosophy of the null hypothesis, a lack of authoratively-reviewed evidence for the scientific claims in this article is in itself evidence that the claims are at least untested if not pseduoscience. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: This is not a promising sign. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: An American science documentary, in a style not unlike NOVA, provided documented evidence of alien autopsies. Again, peer reviewed and replicated research is the primary test for scientific claims. In the absence of this evidence, claims about the world cannot be considered scientific, especially since it is likely that entertainment and audience share are at least as important to television show producers than furthering scientific truth. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: A quick web search finds a patent for an anti-gravity vehicle, which violoates the laws of physics. A quick review of the number of patent applications, the staff budget available to review them and the scientific training of most reviewers shows that most applications get little scientific review...by extension the USPO is not equipped to review evidence from scientists...hence the need for peer review of research released within the scientific community for review and replication. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: See WP:CIVIL. Negotiating with people who you see as closed-minded and who have the 'audacity to generate negative opinion...about a living person' are an essential part of an open academic project such as wikipedia. I suggest  assuming good faith regarding others edits. The WP:BIO policy applies primarily to the promotion of unproven gossip and character assassinations--scientific claims do not get any special immunity from cricitisim by their association with a bio article. Wherever these claims appear, scientific evidence must be included supporting them to the extent that these claims are novel relative to the body of science as a whole. Antonrojo 06:18, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unsourced material should be removed

message: Revision as of 06:34, 18 July 2006 (edit)
Telomere+ (Talk | contribs) 
(Clarification of the finding of the Medical Practitoner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand)
"The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test was considered by the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand in the course of its judgment of the case of Richard Gorringe. In the Tribunal's 
final report on that case, which is the only known recorded opinion of the BDORT by a mainstream medical body, the Tribunal found that '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity.'[3]
The incomplete quotation from the Tribunal's final report contained in the previous sentence requires clarification, because it leads the reader to conclude that PMRT [BDORT] practiced by 
Dr. Gorringe and condemned by the Tribunal equals the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test practiced by Dr. Omura. This conclusion is false. In fact, in paragraph 290 on page 58 of the 142 page document, 
the Medical Practitoner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand clearly stated:
"290. Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to a Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from perusal of those materials 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.” (DATED at Wellington this 5th day of August 2003, at the end of the proceeding.)
This paragraph clearly indicates that Dr. Gorringe’s method is different from Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.  Dr. Gorringe misrepresented Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test by calling it the same thing and using something different. Paragraph 292 on pages 59-60 includes Dr. Gorringe’s description of the so-called Bi-Digital O-Ring Test he used. This description clearly has nothing to do with Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. Dr. Gorringe’s method is a combination of a modified German electrical diagnostic method developed by Dr. Voll and some strange form of O-Ring finger technique, which Dr. Omura never used or taught. In addition, Dr. Gorringe’s proceeding uses the other name PMRT more often and in paragraph 290 above the word ‘BDORT’ is in parenthesis. These facts support the idea that Dr. Gorringe misrepresented the Omura Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and confused it with something that is different from the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Dr. Omura developed and practices and teaches.
Finally in this regard, Dr. Richard Gorringe, M.D. of New Zealand called Dr. Omura a few times during 1993-1994 and indicated he had a problem. He claimed he was being prosecuted as a result of using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in New Zealand and asked Dr. Omura to come to defend the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test. When Dr. Omura asked him how he performed the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, according to his description what he was doing had very little to do with Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and work. In addition, Dr. Gorringe’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test did not meet the minimum medical standards because he did not seek to confirm his findings by a 
standard laboratory test; mostly he was using a modified German electrical diagnostic method developed by Dr. Voll, for which he could not explain the basic principles.  
Therefore, Dr. Omura told him he was misrepresenting the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and discrediting Dr. Omura’s work, and Dr. Omura supported the Medical Practitioner’s Disciplinary 
Tribunal of New Zealand's effort to remove Dr. Gorringe’s license. The Tribunal never requested Dr. Omura to appear for the hearing because they had already determined that Dr. Gorringe’s method of using the so-called Bi-Digital O-Ring Test differed from Dr. Omura’s method, as quoted in paragraph 290 above.
In conclusion, the above partial quotation '...there is no plausible evidence that PMRT [BDORT] has any scientific validity' does not apply to Dr. Omura's Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and it's use 
misrepresents the conclusion of the Tribunal. 
Because the Medical Practitioner's Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand found Dr. Gorringe’s method is different from Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, none of the conclusions of the Tribunal or opinions of the expert witnesses relative to Dr. Gorringe's method apply to Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, and will therefore be removed as unsourced or poorly sourced negative material according to Wikipedia's clear policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons quoted above.
Certification.  These statements are inserted as a major edit in the talk pages of Dr. Omura's article by a serious student and supporter of Dr. Omura since January 2000.  As I became acquainted with Dr. Omura, M.D. (Yokohama City University, with internship at Toyoko University Hospital, Tokyo), Sc.D. (in Pharmaco-Electrophysiology of Single Cardiac Cells, 
Columbia University, New York), I realized his far-reaching expertise was rooted in a strong academic background involving an unusual combination of fields including experimental physics 
(B.S. in Applied Physics, Waseda University, Tokyo--the founder of the SONY Corporation graduated from the same Engineering School--and three years in Graduate Experimental Physics, non-matriculated, Columbia University), medical electronics (Research Professor, Department of Electrical Engineering, Manhattan College, where he introduced the first course in Biomedical Electronics), and basic and clinical medicine (Research Fellow in Cardiovascular Surgery, and Residency at the Cancer Research Hospital, Columbia University) from both Western and Oriental perspectives (several teaching and research Professorship appointments at various universities in 
Japan and the U.S.).  
In addition, because of my own positive experience and the spectacular results I witnessed over the years on difficult patients brought by their physicians during seminars and workshops, as well as observing Dr. Omura's relentless dedication to his research and the exciting progress in his application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, I volunteered to assist Dr. Omura several days each month during his seminars and workshops as well as in writings such as this to clarify his work, since 2005.  
I have now spent many long days (often working day and night until close to sunrise) and untold hours with him doing research, documentation, clarification, teaching, and especially clinical 
application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.  I hereby testify under penalty of perjury I have repeatedly seen and heard amazing, yes almost unbelievable clinical results--documented whenever feasible by standard laboratory tests such as X-ray, MRI, blood chemistries, etc.--both initially and during follow-up visits of various severe conditions often beyond the reach of conventional medicine and dentistry, in my opinion. 
The hallmark of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test performed by physicians well trained by Dr. Omura is the early non-invasive diagnosis of medical conditions and their safe and effective treatment.  Such diagnosis is often achieved within 30 minutes, and often long before any known laboratory test can detect any abnormality or malignancy.  It can involve both asymptomatic or unmanageable conditions.  Moreover, it can save or prolong lives, because safe optimal doses of effective medicines can be determined and administered quickly, and by special methods delivered directly to the areas of need, avoiding side effects.  Such precise non-toxic effective treatment customized to each individual can achieve amazing results in minutes, hours, or days depending on the pathogenic factors unique to each individual.  Through virtual drug testing, another important benefit and application of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, harmful drug interactions, allergies, and toxic doses can be detected and avoided without ever exposing people or animals to any potentially offensive substances.  
Such effective diagnosis and treatment, the reader may agree, redefines the standard of both conventional and alternative medicine, and does sound too good to be true.  That is the reason I 
have spent my time and effort to investigate the premises, claims, and methods of Dr. Omura and his Bi-Digital O-Ring Test since January 2000, both for myself and my patients, and have found 
them to be true and effective, as almost unbelievable as they are.  The famous founder of SONY, Mr. Masaru Ibuka, having studied and evaluated the validity and application of Dr. Omura's Bi-
Digital O-Ring Test with his close associates, was so satisfied with what he found he served as the honorary President of the Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society, described Dr. Omura's 
Bi-Digital O-Ring Test in his autobiography, and stated publicly, "The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is a necessary tool for the paradigm shift from 20th century medicine to 21st century medicine."
The content of this edit is based on direct communication with Dr. Omura (a verifiable source) as well as my personal knowledge and experience of using Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, 
which when used correctly as taught by Dr. Omura has great potential merit in my opinion, as indicated above.  I certify under penalty of perjury that every statement I have made in this edit is true and complete to the best of my diligent investigation, knowledge and belief.  I further certify under penalty of perjury that every statement I will remove from this article or its talk pages according to Wikipedia policy, Wikipedia:Biographies of 
living persons, is irrelevant, invalid, dishonest, preposterous, false or misleading negative material that is unsourced or poorly sourced, having little or no foundation, to the best of my diligent investigation, knowledge and belief, so help me God.   
Signed on September 4,2006 
Telomere+
:I have removed the mention of the particular doctor being stripped of his license from the opening section as that in itself is irrelevant to Yoshiaki Omura, though as a neutral third party, it does indeed appear entirely neutral to state that The Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand believes that Yoshiaki's test is not ascientifically reliable technique. This is indeed clearly sourced, and no one is stating that the beliefs of the above organization are to be taken as true. That is the essence of the neutral point of view, such that opposing arguments can be shown. Now, if the statement was simply saying that his methods were useless, then that indeed would be removable per biographies of living people, but simply stating that a certain organization believes that his methods aren't reliable appears to be in line with policy. If there is indeed a belief that the doctor was simply not well practiced in this technique, then a secondary source should be found that illustrates that, but we must rely on verifiable information to refute the point given in the article. On a side note, Telomere, you may want to look at WP:AUTO and recognize that we all have subconscious biases, and as you are clearly so heavily involved with Omura, you may indeed be subject to such bias yourself (in the interest of maintaining a neutral point of view, it is usually best for neutral third parties to deal with potentially inflammatory information, for example). Thanks. Cowman109Talk 19:53, 8 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking through it again, I also added the information that the methods may have differed. Either way, however, I am getting a feeling that all of this is innapropriate for a page that is concerning Yoshiaki Omura, and should instead be on a page specifically for the method he uses. That is another issue, however. Do these changes seem acceptable? Cowman109Talk 20:03, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure if I agree that entirely reverting the article to an older august 8th entry is appropriate - many grammatical and content-related changes have been made since then. And Wikipedia is also not a place to display one's view that Omura is a joke - we need a neutral representation of this article. Could you please explain your reasoning for reverting to that version? Thanks. Cowman109Talk 02:43, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to make sure I was clear - this is also not a place to say that his methods are fine or not, but instead it should simply be stated what secondary sources have to say about Omura, and if the mainstream view is indeed that his practices are innapropriate, that should indeed be made clear. I'm not sure if this revert war is productive to get this article to proper NPOV standards, however. Cowman109Talk 02:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments on specific edits

message: I reverted to what seems to me the most nearly-stable form of the entry prior to what proved in my judgement an abortive attempt to placate a professional advocate.
: I then removed the Dominic Lu cite which had a link made dead, one presumes, by Omura's advocates so as to not have one of their own key people on the record denying one of their claims.
: I then added balancing statements so that the long, long list of claims made by Omura and his proponents, and sourced only to their sites, are noted as, in fact, finding no external evaluation or validation. This seems to me to be elementary balance as to claim made vs available independent evidence for that claim. Arcsincostan 03:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  State of Play 

message: Arc, this is nowhere near a stable form, I will revert it now. Your statements above about notability are totally inaccurate (of any consensus ever). I hope a new mediator turns up soon. We are back to selective quoting, excluding WP:OK citations because they dont say what you want them to say etc etc. I think all concerned should have waited for the new mediator. You have also put back citations that we agreed under mediation were not WP:OK. This is sheer bias and anti-WP. It is also disrespectful to the mediation process and other editors generally. I assure you that your time will be wasted: if you put back information that has been disagreed under mediation and arrived at by complete consensus after careful consideration (including by yourself) of WP policies then I will revert your edits straightaway, indefinitely. I will also consider this vandalism and see if anything can be done in formal WP policies to block you editing.Richardmalter 12:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: These edits are not vandalism, and perhaps the vandalism warning templates innapropriate. This is a simple content dispute (see Wikipedia:Edit war), and we must all remember to assume good faith of one another and recognize that we are all trying to improve the encyclopedia in some way. The fact stands that reverting other's edits is unproductive, and we are much better off adding to and tweaking the article than simple removing everything other editors have added.
Cowman, both definitions of edit war are practices for which editors can be blocked. The first is a violation of WP:3RR and the second is stated in the link you provide as cause for blocking. Antonrojo 06:24, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

text: Content-wise, I believe from an uninvolved third person perspective that the addition of a sentence at the end of many of these paragraphs stating that Omura's practices are not scientifically proven is unproductive as it is simply redundant and is much easier explained in the overview about his method. Perhaps we can go on from there and work to improve the article? On a side note, administrators are not forced to only block you if you violate the three revert rule - edit warring in itself is grounds for blocking, despite the number, so I ask that you all cease reverting eachother's edits. Now then - how about we focus on specific paragraphs and what we would like to change about them? Cowman109Talk 13:06, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I disagree about Cowman109's point regarding the non-scientific balancing statements. Since we are forced to include claims that are not adequately sourced by WP requirements for wild scientific claims, we must have an NPOV balance. The statements add that balance. They are not repetitive or redundant since each refers to the specific claims in its own specific section, and WP policy is to try to keep every paragraph or at least section neutrally balanced. Crum375 13:13, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps another method of solving this dispute could be to work on complete rewritings of sections that can be first proposed here, and then moved to the article? We  could work from the opening and down, for example. Cowman109Talk 13:17, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely acceptable to me. Crum375 13:18, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: The issue of user behavior is irrelevant to me - we need to focus on content, not on the contributor if we want to get anywhere here, so I ask that you all just drop the notion that others are acting in bad faith. Clearly there are problems spread out through the article, so why don't we point out what problems people have with the opening, first? Cowman109Talk 13:33, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current opening (13:32, September 9, 2006 Richardmalter), which was suggested by the last mediator, is OK as it avoids discussing BDORT. See below. Crum375 13:42, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text:  I would like to ask, Cowman, if you intend to attempt to mediate this entry, that you indicate that you have done your homework. Have you or do you intend to thoroughly dig through the cites present in the entry in its present form and familiarize yourself thoroughly with them, as well as with the voluminous discussion, or do you see it as our task to educate you with the materials as you make an en passant effort? In real life a mediator is expected to be familiar with all aspects of the matter under mediation. Do you intend to operate in that fashion, or in some other? Arcsincostan 18:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would tend to agree with Arcsincostan. I have changed my opinion about the lead above because I forgot the notability issue and the AfD discussion consensus. I agree that the NZ Tribunal results must be summarized in the lead, for 2 reasons: a. It is a vital part of the article (the only reliable scientific source) and as such it belongs per WP lead policy in the lead; and b. Per AfD discussion and notability criteria it must be stated in the lead to justify WP inclusion. Please forgive my vacillation here. Crum375 18:51, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: In response to Arcsincostan, you can't expect every single editor who stumbles upon this page to be entirely familiar with the history of this article :) - I'm just more concerned about helping you guys get on track again instead of edit warring. I don't have the time to attempt to mediate this issue extensively so I've left the issue still up for volunteer mediators at the Mediation Cabal, (which is an entirely informal procedure, I might add, so one should not expect volunteers to be up to the task of researching the entire history of the article). I myself must be inactive during the week, so I just hope that you guys refrain from edit warring, and instead seek further discussion. Cowman109Talk 18:57, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Another one bites the dust? ;^) (hey, thanks anyways) Crum375 19:31, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: BTW, Cowman109, I'm a volunteer too, who came in as an informal mediator and got stuck in this black hole ever since. I did read thru most of the history at the point I came in, but of course it was much smaller then. Well, this would be a good test for WP to see if we (collectively) can bring this article to its required standards. Crum375 21:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Since everyone seems to be going back to reverting the article (I would like to note that there have been several 3rr violations by separate parties, which you could have been blocked for), I have full-protected the article. Please discuss the issue here instead of edit warring on the article, as things are much more productive this way. Cowman109Talk 22:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I found the 'other party', so I stand corrected. Thanks, Crum375 22:30, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Personally, I still have qualms with the version I protected - but administrators always protect the m:The wrong version. If I were to revert to a certain version, it would be inappropriate per the protection policy. Cowman109Talk 22:52, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

text: No one has done any vandalism here, for the record. This is just a content dispute. The only possible blockable offense in such a situation would be violating the three revert rule. Cowman109Talk 14:09, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Crum375, whatever way you put it, yes we did address it and the "Discussion [was] closed and action taken as agreed". You knew that. You reverted changes that break that agreement (that you were directly party to). You and Arc both broke agreements made (by you) in the short space of time that the mediation was paused. Whatever you write, however many words you use, in whatever way you try to construe it, does not change that fact. Your agreement is documented. Your action that breaks that agreement is documented. I will refer to this as necessary as a documented fact.Richardmalter 08:40, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

text: Cowman109, if a definite, specific, archived, documented agreement is reached by mediated consensus regarding content, and then a participant in that mediation knowingly breaks the agreement and reverts it, does WP consider this vandalism? (I think it does clearly.) If not, what else in WP terms? Richardmalter 08:43, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  waiting for mediation 

message: It would make things a lot easier if everyone used proper formatting, including section headers, to help divide up what's being said in order to make it easier to follow. 
:If you are replying to someone, please indent your comments using an asterisk (to bullet) or a colon (to indent). 
::You can increase the level of the reply by adding more of whichever one you are using.
:If you want to make a numbered list
#You can
#do so
#like this
:You can even combine them to produce
:#appearances like
:#this list
Please also notice the talk page header at the top of the page. It has some useful tips as well. Thanks! ···日本穣? · Talk to Nihonjoe 07:01, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, though useful for short and simple discussions, the indentation method breaks down when you have long and complex ones like ours here. We do use the indents, lists and numbers as you mention sometimes, but when you have long and deep nesting levels, and where you may address not just the immediate message above but others as well, they are just not always correct or practical. So what we do here is a combination - sometimes we use them and sometimes not, as you can see if you follow our (very long) archived history. Anyway, thank you for your kind suggestion. Crum375 11:19, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Using formatting