Talk:BDORT/Archive 7

message: May I ask, RM, why you simply removed this without comment?  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by GenghizRat (talk • contribs) 04:51, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Query As to Removal of My Comment 

message: At present the entry exists in stub form, with the sole basis of its having survived requests for deletion having been removed, in a form I judge utterly unsatisfactory per both rational thought and Wikipedia criteria. I therefore withdraw my provisional acceptance of the entry's shortened form, which was agreed to temporarily, pending Gzkn's sandboxed version (which never happened), as noted above, by The Stainless Steel Rat. In this context the form of the entry prior extant seems to me the most acceptable. GenghizRat 02:57, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Note: This, as per time stamp, was made earlier, but was removed by RM without comment, prior to his comments and Cowman's subsequent comments. GenghizRat 04:56, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reality Bites? 

message: (The Wikipedia entry for the term 'wild track,' incidentally, is substantially in error as any competent audio engineer would tell anyone in a moment, and, no, I don't intend to set it right.)
That said, a wild track of a different sort: Perhaps this is a false problem. In the RfD discussions I believe the record will clearly indicate the New Zealand Tribunal was accepted as a verificable, thoroughly reliable source per Wikipedia criteria. There is to my knowledge no record of any comparable verifiable, thoroughly reliable source per Wikipedia criteria as to Yoshiaki Omura and his researches other than the New Zealand Tribunal.
Perhaps, then, there is no basis per Wikipedia criteria for an independent entry for Yoshiaki Omura, but, rather, there ought be a minor entry for the case of Richard Gorringe, which achieved some notoriety, and apparently resulted in alteration of regulations regarding alternative medicine in Australia and New Zealand.
There is, of course, an entry for Richard Gorringe at present, which RM some time ago edited to suit his perception. Perhaps the Yoshiaki Omura entry might simply be eliminated, and appropriately neutered language with respect to an en passant reference to Yoshiaki Omura might be included in that entry.
Perhaps, in other words, other than in the context of the Richard Gorringe entry, the Yoshiaki Omura entry ought not exist.
I recognize that, given the effort made to date it might be difficult to seriously consider such a possibility, but might it not make perfectly good sense? GenghizRat 08:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally think that given enough exposure to the general community, this entry can easily pass muster. I think the current version, after its last AfD scrutiny, is not far from ideal. It may need some tweaking here and there, and we can always do that, but just the fact that one side with a clear conflict of interest refuses to accept well sourced information is no reason to give up. It is reason to carefully scrutinize everything, and I am all for it, but I would not just trash the whole article because someone doesn't like the well sourced facts. WP is all about presenting well sourced knowledge, and that should be our 'track'. Crum375 12:33, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wild Track 

message: Richard, I don't lightly make accusations of vandalism, but I believe that removing other editors' Talk page comments is considered clear vandalism (see 'Talk page vandalism' under WP:VAN). If you don't like someone's civil comment, unless it contains a personal attack, you can't just delete it, though you may certainly reply to it. Thanks, Crum375 13:47, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism by Richardmalter 

message: Crum, take it easy, remember to assume good faith, it was an error. What's the WP idea of getting some ice cream.Richardmalter 22:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crum needs some ice cream to cool off 

message: Crum, I think you are clearly acting in very bad faith. You have a very clear bias that was revealed in your note to Addhoc:
:". . .who sells it for a living, despite the procedure (and related techniques) being declared '...irresponsible and unacceptable' by a Medical Disciplinary Review Board in NZ, please carry on. Be aware however, that the advocates, of which we have seen several, will persist until the article will look their way. When they are done, it will say that BDORT is a wonderful technique, that can diagnose and heal most diseases, from the common cold to cancer, and has simply not been appreciated by mainstream medicine. Be also aware that there are people out there, potential WP readers, who will rely on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses and treatments, as was the case in NZ, with possible dire consequences. It is clearly not WP's role to perform any WP:OR, and we must only present WP:NPOV and WP:RS. But . . . professional advocates, who will persist indefinitely, as their livelihoods clearly depend on it."  
You want to warn the world about perceived dangers you see in the BDORT. Your own words say what your bias is. Yet you do not 'admitt' it! Che noted it straightaway and noted that your opinions are in fact quite clear. This bias of yours that you wont declare publicly (you 'slipped up' once) explains why you wont even accept a NPOV stub. It also explains why you act in bad faith in many other cases - eg 'headlining' me as making unilateral changes very previously, when the very next thing you do is make "unilateral change" which is when I had to point out to everyone your sham mediation attempt. You also repeatedly revert complete mediated consensus agreements that you were part of and then try to weedle out of admitting it until I pin you down about it and you have nothing further to say but keep quite (see above). That is extremely bad faith. You also continue to slandar people every which way and think (perhaps like yourself in your day to day like) that everyone here who does not agree with you is motivated by money here primarily or even at all. Which you would be wrong about either way. Slandaring people, Crum, is uncivil behaviour. Even when I correct you re myself you continue to blatantly misrepresent me and many others. This is the height of bad faith and uncivil behaviour. Your acts of bad faith and completely uncivil behaviour are very prominent and many. I am trying to assume good faith towards you all the time, in action (however not thought), but your behaviour is virtually making that impossible. That is why I conclude that you have a very severe memory problem, as the only good faith solution to explain your actions by. I am sure that that makes the position clear. If it doesn't, get some help understanding it, from someone else, not me. I am guessing that you are some kind of medical doctor or aspiring medical person ror armchair expert of some kind who is fervently against anything like the BDORT. But that is just my guess. The rest of what I write above here, about your most uncivil behaviour is documented. This is not a personal attack; it is an exposure of uncivil behaviour which is unacceptable. [User:Richardmalter|Richardmalter]] 05:52, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crum needs to stop: slandaring; reverting his agreements; acting in very bad faith continuously 

message: I would argue that on the evidence it is not possible to mediate this entry.
The present active participants are, on the one hand, RM and Dots, who support a truncated form of the entry with the exclusion of the New Zealand Tribunal’s negative characterization of Omura/BDORT, and, on the other hand, Crum, AR, and myself.
Gzkn had briefly appeared, offered to sandbox a new version of the entry, and has not been heard from since.
Che has embraced the RM/Dots form of the entry in the belief that it is possible to build out a valid consensual form of the entry from this stub.
Cowman has quite recently offered to work up and present a revised form of the entry.
I am disposed to the following judgements:
:1) The probability of building out an acceptable form of the entry from the present stub is effectively nil, for reasons that ought, in my judgement, be abundantly obvious.
:2) As community consensus within Wikipedia is effectively demonstrable in instances where agreement cannot be reached by all participants only via the mechanism of the much-maligned (rightly so) revert war, there is simply no other mechanism available, all substantive matters having been addressed ad infinitum, ad nauseum.
I will, therefore, operate on that basis, as I find no support available within my admittdly finite comprehension of what we laughingly refer to as reality for the positions represented by Omura/BDORT/Richard/Dots.
If Cowman or anyone else is able to present a suitable solution, I would hope that I have the elementary sense to recognize and acknowledge that fact. GenghizRat 04:29, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS: As a bot has now happily reverted my attempt at participation, I will now leave you to your endless discussions, and Wikipedia to its course. GenghizRat 04:41, 9 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Also Sprach GenghizRat 

message: I would suggest it might be helpful if Dots worked within this context rather than independently, which, it would seem to me is less than ideal. GenghizRat 20:09, 10 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dots 

message: IT IS A FACT AGAIN DOCUMENTED JUST ABOVE THAT YOU (and GR) REVERT AND MAINTAIN A REVERSION OF MEDIATED CONSENSUS AGREEMENTS THAT YOU WERE FULLY PART OF. THIS IS BREACH OF PROCESS IN ANY KIND OF GOOD FAITH Richardmalter 03:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, please stay off the caps, I understand you are frustrated. I suggest you take some time and decide your best course of action. If you do want to work with us here on the Talk page to try to improve the article, the door is always open, as I mentioned above. Thanks, Crum375 03:41, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: I respectfully suggest the same. This has been a trying process for all parties involved, and it might be best to take a bit, get a bit of perspective, and simply decide on a course of action as seems to you appropriate. GenghizRat 03:44, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Richard, all our words and actions are automatically recorded on WP - you don't need to shout in caps to make them 'stick'. Again, please take some time to decide what you want. If you want to work here on the Talk page with us as I offered above, please let us know. If you want to file for Arbitration, that's your choice. But please take your time and decide what you want, just posting capped messages is counter-productive. Crum375 04:00, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summing up Crum's position 

message: Another aspect of the dilemma here may be the marginal notability of this entry. I had previously nominated the entry for deletion on that basis, and the consensus went against me. Simply to repeat the point, for whatever it's worth, not to reargue it, it seems to me that the only clear basis for notability per Wikipedia criteria is the New Zealand Tribunal. All other sources are, at least to my eye, dubious at best as to acceptability. Hence, I think, part of the reason for this maelstrom. GenghizRat 21:54, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the voluminous discussion during the last AfD addressed these issues in excruciating detail. The consensus, after cutting down a small virtual forest, was that the combined Omura/BDORT was/is notable, though it requires further work. It's our job here to keep improving it. Crum375 22:25, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

text: It has always been my belief that the NZ tribunal source is the only significant source that can be considered reliable for WP:V. Without it, we don't have anything to base the article on. --Philosophus T 03:02, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. GenghizRat 16:21, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Comparing it to many articles I have worked on and typical WP articles in general, the current version is actually fairly reasonably sourced. I do agree, as I have noted many times here, that the NZT reference is the most important and reliable source for this article, around which all the rest revolves. Crum375 22:36, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notability 

message: Has been requested because:
(1) Crum and GR have continuously reverted full consensus mediated agreements that they were fully party to. 
2) They have denied (1) above repeatedly - until I showed them the archives where there words and agreements are documented. But still they avoid their agreements.
3) Crum has continuously "resisted mediation" in the words of the last Mediator, Che, to the extent that the Mediator gave up. Crum shows no real intention to do anything totally unbiased or act in any kind of good faith way:
4) Crum has displayed a "continual lack of good faith" during the mediation process, in the words of the Mediator. He has in fact acted in continuous bad faith throughout.
5) Crum and GR have teamed up to out-revert me in order to maintain (1-4) above and in so doing make a mockery of WP.
:Perhaps I'm in procedural error here, Richard, but I believe you ought now make your points in arbitration rather than here. GenghizRat 05:14, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe you've made your position clear, Richard. I suggest you make your arguments, and offer evidence. GenghizRat 05:55, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arbitration 

message: Richard, as noted here on your discussion page  I believe you are again in violation of 3RR, having made by my count 4 reverts within the last 24 hours under both your user name and anon IP. If my understanding is correct, I would respectfully suggest you restore the previous version of the entry as a minimal sign of willingness to abide by Wikipedia rules and processes. If I am in some way in error, please feel free to correct me. GenghizRat 08:54, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I regret that as you've taken no action to self-revert, I've reported you as once again in willful violation. GenghizRat 09:38, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR 

message: I would again suggest, Richard, that you simply attempt to make your case, offer your arguments and evidence, in an attempt to persuade others, either here or in Arbitration, rather than apparently insisting on your 'right' to violate the rules and processes of the community because you find yourself in disagreement with others. GenghizRat 09:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I would once again suggest... 

message: According to http://www.quackwatch.org/11Ind/gorringe.html, Gorringe caused a patient to die by relying on BDORT in lieu of conventional diagnosis:Most of these conditions were diagnosed with BDORT and "treated" with homeopathic products. Noting that the Smith had reported blood in his bowel movements and abdominal symptoms over a 3-year period, the tribunal concluded that Gorringe had negligently failed to perform adequate diagnostic investigations and that by the time the another physician diagnosed the cancer it had spread too far to be treatable. Smith died six months later.
Should this be included in the article? Crum375 02:47, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I fail to grasp your argument, Richard, as I have in the past. If the Tribunal supposedly drew a distinction between Gorringe and BDORT how do you explain these quotes from its official Findings:
Testimony used by tribunals in their decision
Several doctors provided testimony at the MPDT tribunal:
‘In summary, I find the descriptions of the AK [applied kinesiology] methods and in particular the BDORT test to be inconsistent with known physical principles. Even if it were possible to produce a “field” with these methods, AK [applied kinesiology] methods (and BDORTing) [testing] have not been shown to produce an electrical field which is required to alter the electrical activation of nerve and muscle. A limited survey of the literature shows that the AK [applied kinesiology] testing results are unreliable – and this idea is apparently supported by some organisations that support complementary medicine. 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 Bryden Cannell, Expert Witness called by the Tribunal, with whose testimony it concurred – Tribunal Findings, Paragraph 306[5]
‘BDORT is operator dependent, meaning that what actually happens is that the operator diagnoses whatever it is that he believes in. One cannot scientifically evaluate “belief”. In the context of testing, then, it would be impossible to challenge the practitioner’s belief in his apparatus. – John Charles Welch, MD, Expert Witness called by the Tribunal, with whose testimony it concurred – Tribunal Findings, Paragraph 314[5]
‘I think the big problem with the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test is the fact that it’s not been properly tested to make sure that the results are reproducible. As Professor Cannell alluded to in his evidence, the key thing about science is a naive observer anywhere in the world should be able to reproduce the results using the same apparatus.” – John Charles Welch, MD, Expert Witness called by the Tribunal, with whose testimony it concurred – Tribunal Findings, Paragraph 316[5]
Note: The Tribunal specifically equates BDORT’s claims of scientific validity with those of Applied Kinesiology and Gorringe’s personally preferred terminology of PMRT. Cf Paragraphs 100, 280, 290, 297, 305, 306, et alia[5] GenghizRat 04:48, 16 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Forgive the hasty copy-paste, but you're certainly familiar with this from the entry, yet you seem to keep denying the NZT conflated BDORT. How do you reach that interpretation? GenghizRat 04:51, 16 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Patient death due to reliance on BDORT per Quackwatch

message: When the page is unprotected the Quackery category can be deleted as it has been dropped through the CFD process. --Lee Hunter 02:19, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Coolness. Thanks, Lee. GenghizRat 02:27, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: CFD

message: I have spoken with Dr Omura today. He is deeply upset and troubled because of how he is being misrepresented on WP (by GenghizRat and Crum375). Dr Omura told me that many of the statements made by GenghizRat about him are gross misrepresentations that have no basis in reality. The heading Affiliations/Credentials is particularly misrepresenting, as it suggests that Dr Omura has dishonestly attempted to affiliate himself professionally, which is a completely false suggestion. He wonders how someone who can remain without identity can be allowed to make such comments about him without him being able to address them via a lawyer as necessary. 
This also of course shows the intent of GenghizRat - the author of this section - to try desperately to spread disrepute about Dr Omura. Richardmalter 07:09, 21 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: REQUEST to Arbitrators: THAT THE VERSION CURRENTLY PROTECTED NOT REMAIN DURING THIS PROCESS

message: As Richard Malter has recently pointed out  in his presentation of Evidence in accord with his presentation of Yoshiaki Omura's demands  re the entry, the cite as originally referenced in Yoshiaki Omura: Affiliations/Credentials has now been 'corrected' on the Brazilian site which appears to be affiliated with Omura's work. I have therefore taken the liberty of replacing this previous citation with the three citations I located and placed in Evidence after noting Richard Malter's citing the 'corrected' cite in Evidence.  Though I recognize that as the entry is now in Arbitration it is likely most sensible in general not to lay hands on it, this correction seemed appropriate. If not, please advise. GenghizRat 05:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Correction of Yoshiaki Omura Entry Cites re Affiliations/Credentials 

message: Is anyone here really going to argue that the Affliations section is not 100% WP:OR?
I think the only decent thing to do is revert the stub, which if it is not disallowed by Arbitration I will do. Richardmalter 14:26, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Richard, please refrain from edit warring while Arbitration is ongoing. The current version is well sourced, and supported by User:Antonrojo, User:Philosophus, User:GenghizRat and myself. If you have a specific problem with a specific source or any issue, please discuss it here. Just saying it's "100% WP:OR" is not specific enough. Thanks, Crum375 18:16, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  100% WP:OR 

message: If you'd like a neutral party to step in, please let me know. Things seem heated here. Just H 21:33, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This article is currently under Arbitration. We would love to have neutral parties (and even well-behaved non-neutral ones), however, and your offer to help is very welcome. Thanks, Crum375 21:41, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Neutral Party

message: It seems that there is renewed activity by anonymous throwaway accounts which are not engaging in discussion on the Talk page. The current version is well sourced and is supported by 4 neutral contributors to the article who have no conflict of interest - Antonrojo, GenghizRat, Philosophus and myself. I suggest we leave this version alone while the issues are being arbitrated. Civil and productive Talk page comments are of course always welcome. Crum375 21:58, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Editing by throwaway accounts

message: I've protected the wrong version of this article temporarily due to revert warring.  Please discuss any changes here and lift the protection as soon as it is feasible to do so.  Can't sleep, clown will eat me 23:48, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Protected due to revert warring

message: When all the arguments about the diagnostic technique has been settled, one would still be left with an article that has no value as a biography (one sentence). From reading the link to his CV, it would seem that Dr Omura is indeed worthy of a proper biographical article in WP. Would someone be prepared to check the accuracy of that single biography reference, and maybe write a slightly shorter version of it, as well as a description of Dr Omura as a person? At least that would be an article on its own, and a good background for whatever one wishes to say about BDORT, i.e. a perspective on why the doctor has developed and promotes his ideas on healing. I say this as a passing "browser"  who happen to find the article, and saw all the effort being wasted on non-biographical things.  --Seejyb 23:50, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I believe that the reason for the relatively small amount of information on Omura the man vs. his BDORT diagnostic technique is that there were 2 previous AfD's (see links at top of Talk page) that essentially concluded that Omura is only notable because of BDORT, and BDORT is only notable because of the NZT report(s). This explains the relative amounts of information in the current article. Notability and available reliable sources play a major role of course. Crum375 00:10, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Let me add that if you can find any relevant reliable information about Dr. Omura, it should certainly be considered for inclusion into the article. Crum375 00:17, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreded that the B-DORT must be a separate (much less repetitive)  article. I would probably be prepared to consider it appropriately documented & notable as pesudoscience.  We can see what is left of the bio subsequently.DGG 01:11, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that change, if we do it, would be mostly a formality, since the BDORT procedure and related issues already figure prominently in the article and BDORT is redirected to it. Omura would clearly have to be mentioned, probably in a section, and presumably, if it is decided that BDORT is his main documented claim to fame, would be redirected to this article. We could then end up with almost the same article, give or take. As far as WP:BLP considerations, they would still apply, since BLP rules must be followed whenever living persons are mentioned, regardless of whether they are the subject of the article or not. So I see no major advantage to the change, but OTOH I can see it may make more sense logically as BDORT is clearly the more prominent and documented subject. Crum375 01:33, 14 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biography?? 

message: The following is authorized to be published here by Dr Omura with the intention of informing WP editors regarding his biography and statements and false suggestions made about him. Other parts of this statement that reveal private information about some editors here have been sent to ArbCom. 
[]Concerning Wikipedia's false denouncement of my work.
[]The accusations are not based on my public statements or my published statements, but rather on misrepresentations or misleading statements made by completely different persons than myself, including Dr. Gorringe of New Zealand (who called me to help for his defense before a hearing in New Zealand in 2002-2003).  I did not [know] Dr. Gorringe and never spoke with him before his first phone call to me.  I questioned him about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.  It immediately became clear that he was using some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).  Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology.  If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data.  Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.  Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different.  I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings.  After he lost his license, he came to New York in the spring of 2004 to learn my technique for the first time.  
In addition, I found that in the entire copy of the hearing, the following statement, according to page 58, paragraph 290:
Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to Dr. Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42).  However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.
The question is why [WP editors are] making such irresponsible denouncements in an incorrect and distorted presentation that attempts to discredit myself and my work (and, indirectly, many MD’s, DDS’s, PhD’s, and paramedical professionals involved with the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test) by presenting claims that are contrary to the existing facts.  All of the descriptions of Omura’s work are very superficial.  Some of my published works listed on Wikipedia are not relevant to my important work.  In addition, some of my important work had been completely eliminated, including:
1) Non-invasive, early detection of cancer, Alzheimer's disease, & autism (often the  diseases and their possible causes can be detected long before standard  laboratory tests can detect them) and their safe, effective treatment
2) Beneficial effects of one optimal dose of DHEA (compared with side effects from the currently used daily toxic overdose of DHEA) and how to maintain the beneficial effect
3) Role of asbestos in contributing to intractable medical problems including malignant tumors (often before standard laboratory tests can detect them, cardiovascular disease, intractable chronic pain, and their safe, effective treatment) and how to remove already deposited asbestos
4)  Non-invasive estimation of approximate distribution of medicines taken by patients, various neuro-transmitters, bacterial and viral infections, other toxic substances, etc. at various parts of the body, measured using Bi-Digital O-Ring Test resonance between two identical substances
5)  How to localize the location, shape, diameter, & depths of true acupuncture points on different meridians corresponding to specific internal organs
6)  Discovery that a number of acupuncture points are written and taught at slightly incorrect locations, as there is no method other than BDORT to find this basic, important information for acupuncture treatment
7)  Pulse repetition rate-dependent electro-acupuncture therapeutic effects
8)  Pharmaco-electrophysiology of single cardiac cells in-vivo and in-vitro (For part of this research the Doctor of Science (Medicine) degree was awarded from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University in 1965)
Also, nowhere does the Wikipedia article mention that, in 1965, I received the degree of Doctor of Science (Medicine) from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University.  Also, I was a visiting research professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering of Manhattan College and taught one of the first courses in the USA on biomedical electronics for more than 20 years.  I received my undergraduate degree in Applied Physics from the best Japanese private university engineering school.  I spent 3 years studying graduate experimental physics at Columbia University as a non-matriculated student.  I have one of the best reputations in acupuncture research internationally and in the USA, with a list of close to 100 lectures given at institutes and meetings internationally, books and chapters in books, and more than 50 research articles on electro-acupuncture as indicated by my stolen CV.  
 
In the final statement, the Wikipedia article claims that:
There is no known statement of the Office of the Professions of the New York State Education Department that state that accreditation to teach acupuncture constitutes certification or endorsement of the full range of Omura's methods
In New York State, all approved acupuncture courses must propose their program first in order to be approved. The original applications already included Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, since it is the only method available to accurately localize the location, shape, size, depth of true acupuncture points and meridians that correspond to the specific internal organs.  After giving each meeting we have to submit the entire 3-Day Seminar & Workshop’s program and the evaluations from each meeting.  It has been highly evaluated by the majority of participants. The course has also been evaluated by both program and site visit. 
Our course by the International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics has been given as an accredited course for over 25 years, with no one ever objecting to the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.  About 10 years ago, our meeting was attended by one doctor who believed in the high doses of vitamin C promoted by Prof. Louis Pauling.  She was a strong believer in Prof. Pauling’s theory. However, in my course I mentioned that vitamin C potentially inhibits most of the effects of anti-bacterial and anti-viral agents, and therefore one should never give large amounts of vitamin C to patients while they are taking anti-bacterial or anti-viral agents. She was extremely disturbed and complained to the New York State Board of Medicine that Dr. Omura was teaching the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which she said has nothing to do with acupuncture without studying the subject. In response to her letter, Mr. Monahan (the head of the state boards of medicine, who authorized our acupuncture training course including the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test) asked me to give an answer to this question.  
We stated that Bi-Digital O-ring Test is the only method that can accurately determine the location, shape, diameter, and depth of true acupuncture points. By evaluating existing acupuncture point by using BDORT resonance phenomenon between two identical substances, we found a few serious mistakes in the locations of relatively well known traditional acupuncture points taught and described in existing textbooks. There is no other method that can accurately localize acupuncture points and their correct shapes and sizes. In addition, in order to perform acupuncture safely and in limited time, BDORT can provide a quick, inexpensive means of evaluating the condition of the patient before ordering the necessary laboratory tests, since inserting a needle in the infected area, there is a possibility of spreading infections.  If the needle is inserted into cancer, it will spread the cancer.  Using the BDORT, the presence of bacterial or viral infection can be detected non-invasively and quickly.  Therefore, we stated that BDORT is absolutely necessary and essential in order to study and practice acupuncture accurately and safely and that, ideally, it should be taught in every acupuncture course, though there are not many people who are qualified to teach it.
The doctor who complained to the New York State Board of Medicine also complained to the AMA, but in both cases, both organizations rejected her complaints after evaluating the case.
Furthermore, before 1988, there were only about 15 acupuncture courses in the USA approved by the New York State Boards of Medicine & Dentistry.  When every existing approved course in acupuncture was reevaluated in 1987 based on the proposed program and background of the faculty members, for a while (from January 1988-mid 1988) our course by the International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics was the only approved course in the USA that was approved by the New York State Boards of Medicine & Dentistry which included the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test and Electro-Acupuncture.  As a result, many doctors requested that we give our 3-day weekend acupuncture courses more than once a month.  We could not increase the frequency to two times a month, so we requested that Mr. Monahan approve a few more courses However, he said that other applications did not satisfy the minimum essential training subjects including basic pharmaco-electrophysiology of electro-acupuncture & practical clinical electro-acupuncture, how to evaluate electrical stimulators using an oscilloscope or other means, how to evaluate whether or not the localized acupuncture point is real, and how to find the shapes and diameters of true acupuncture points.  When I was asked whether the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test should be a necessary part of acupuncture training in other courses, I told him and his female associate who is the director of the non-physicians acupuncture program in New York State that while, ideally, it should be taught in all accredited acupuncture courses it was not necessary to make the BDORT part of all required courses, since I was the only one able to teach the technique at that time and I had no spare time to teach in other courses.
The article also makes the following statement:
Omura's credentials suggest affiliation with Columbia University, [27][28][29] though he is not known to have any affiliation with Columbia. Similarly, Omura's sites prominently feature the statement that he has long held and continues to hold an 'Annual International Symposium on Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics' at Columbia University's School of International and Public Affairs. [30][31][32] There is no known credible independent source to confirm Omura's presentations which suggest affiliation with Columbia University, nor known reference to him on any site or publication of Columbia University
Concerning the article’s claim that I have implied that I am affiliated with Columbia University: that is absolutely false. Although I performed several years of my post-doctoral work at Columbia University and received the degree of Doctor of Science from Columbia University College of Physicians and Surgeons, nowhere have I stated that I am affiliated with Columbia University other than that we have used Columbia University’s facilities at the School of International Affairs for the annual international symposium.  That has nothing to do with claiming that I am a faculty member or that I am affiliated there.  Simply, any qualified person or organization can rent a conference room from any university if the room is available.  I had the choice of renting space at New York University or at a hotel, but have used Columbia University because, of these choices, it is the most conveniently located for me, I am the most familiar with the Columbia University campus, and it is my Alma Mater.  The fact that I use the conference room frequently or that my organization holds its symposium there cannot, to any reasonable person, suggest that I am directly affiliated with Columbia University or its School of International Affairs, where our symposium is held annually.  This space was initially recommended to me by a professor at the university.  Therefore, any claims the Wikipedia article makes to the contrary are false and the references the article uses (27-32) are misleading and false.
Because this Wikipedia article is a biography of a living person, it must be held to the strictest standards.  Any article that attempts to discredit or denounce a living person, particularly when it contains information that has been publicly stated to be false, misleading, and damaging should have special requirements.  My position and the position of the lawyers that I consulted is that in the case of biographies of living persons:
  1) The person writing an article harming, distorting, or discrediting another person should be 
      willing to disclose their true identities, including name, address, telephone number,            
      background, and other pertinent information, and those unwilling to do so should be 
      removed.  
  2) Wikipedia should make it a requirement that such information be provided by those writing
     articles on living persons, particularly when the writing is misrepresenting or contrary to the 
     facts and damaging to the living person’s reputation, and should remove those unwilling to do 
     so and eliminate any writing that they have made, unless their true identity is given.  If the 
     person is pretending to be several different persons by using aliases, they should not be 
     permitted to post any additional information on Wikipedia.
  3) Reliable references on scientific matters should be based on actual research and not the 
     quoting of a 3rd person’s unreliable statements that are not based on the actual data.
  4) In the case of any biography of a living person, the article should only be allowed to be 
    written and posted if that person is directly consulted and given a chance to present their case
    even when the person the article is written about may not be familiar with the computer, and if    
    all statements made about the person have no accurate, solid basis.  This is particularly true 
   when the article contains misrepresentations of facts that are denouncing someone or are 
    damaging.  It is also particularly important when the person writing the article is 
    just quoting superficial, misleading, or incorrect statements made by other people. 
    Otherwise, the person the article is written about has no way to discuss the issue 
    directly with the writer or the responsible person in Wikipedia in a legally responsible way.
    Any person who falsely denounces another person without a solid basis, without providing
    their true identity, and using several aliases to make it seem like more people are presenting 
    their opinion should not be legally permitted to post this information on Wikipedia.
Richardmalter 06:39, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The subject is welcome to provide information, as he has on this talk page; however, except for the most basic information a reliable source should be cited. All information should have a reliable source; that is especially important in the case of negative information. Fred Bauder 01:13, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statement by Dy Yoshiaki Omura MD ScD 

message: Anyone who does any real research about the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test can easily see that these statements are made by someone who has never seriously studied BDORT, and that BDORT is not part of Applied Kinesiology.  If such a person claims that such statements are based on his own research, including actual experimental data, he should be able to provide published data, along with the true identity of the person who claims to be publishing original research on the BDORT.  
Dr. Gorringe told me that he learned it from his old teacher, who incorrectly told him that what he was learning was Dr. Omura’s Bi-Digital O-Ring Test.  Therefore, I told him that he is misrepresenting the BDORT as something completely different.  I told him that I agreed with the New Zealand medical board that his license should be suspended because not only was he misrepresenting my Bi-Digital O-Ring Test but also because he did not order the basic laboratory tests to confirm his personal tests’ findings, as I always emphasize in my teachings.  After he lost his license, he came to New York in the spring of 2004 to learn my technique for the first time.  At that time, he had not told me that he had already lost his medical license
In addition, some of my important work had been completely eliminated, including:
3) Role of asbestos in contributing to intractable medical problems including malignant tumors (often before standard laboratory tests can detect them), cardiovascular disease intractable chronic pain, and their safe, effective treatment) and how to remove already deposited asbestos safely and effectively
4) Non-invasive estimation of approximate distribution of medicines taken by patients, as well as various neuro-transmitters, bacterial and viral infections, other toxic substances at various parts of the body, measured using Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Resonance Phenomena between two identical substances
5) How to localize the location, shape, diameter, & depths of true acupuncture points on different meridians corresponding to specific internal organs using the corresponding organ’s microscope tissue slide and BDORT Resonance Phenomena
6) Important finding that a number of well-known acupuncture points are written and taught at slightly incorrect locations, as there is no method other than BDORT to find this basic, important information for acupuncture treatment with better effects
7) Basic principles of manual and electro-acupuncture
8) How to analyze electrical stimulators using an oscilloscope
Also, nowhere does the Wikipedia article mention that, in 1965, I received the degree of Doctor of Science (Medicine) from the College of Physicians & Surgeons of Columbia University.  Also, I was a visiting research professor in the Department of Electrical Engineering of Manhattan College and taught one of the first courses in the USA on Biomedical Electronics for more than 20 years.  I received my undergraduate degree in Applied Physics from Waseda University, the best Japanese private university engineering school.  I spent 3 years studying graduate experimental physics at Columbia University as a non-matriculated student, with my emphasis on more effort on experiments on electro-magnetic resonance phenomena.  In May 1982, I performed, along with my associate, the first (outside of China) successful use of acupuncture as analgesia for surgery at the University Hospital of Albert Einstein College of Medicine under the supervision of Dr. Orkin, who was the chairman of anesthesiology.  I have one of the best reputations in acupuncture research and clinical practice internationally and in the USA, with a list of close to 100 lectures given at institutes and meetings in the USA and internationally, books and chapters in books, and more than 50 research articles on electro-acupuncture as indicated by my stolen CV.  Because of my work and reputation, I was an invited speaker at many of the most important acupuncture conferences, and many state boards of medicine asked for my opinion concerning the basic requirements for acupuncture courses.
In the new final statement added, the Wikipedia article claims that:
There is no known statement of the Office of the Professions of the New York State Education Department that state that accreditation to teach acupuncture constitutes certification or endorsement of the full range of Omura's methods. 
In New York State, all approved acupuncture courses must propose their program first in order to be approved. The original applications already included Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, since it is the only method available to accurately localize the location, shape, size, depth of true acupuncture points and meridians that correspond to the specific internal organs.  After giving each meeting we have to submit the entire 3-Day Seminar & Workshop’s program and the evaluations from each meeting.  It has been highly evaluated by the majority of participants. The course has also been evaluated by both program and site visit. 
Also, using a reference, [the WP editor] claimed that BDORT is pseudoscience and quackery.  However, the quotation [the WP editor] is referencing is from an advertisement from a company that makes a metal bracelet which they claim was found to be beneficial using the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test developed by Dr. Yoshiaki Omura. [the WP editor]  uses this reference to make the BDORT appear to be pseudoscience and quackery.  However, in many of my  lectures, I not only discuss the side effects of wearing such metals but I also describe briefly why such metals should not be used by explaining a reason why these metals can be harmful.  Therefore, the article’s statement is contrary to the facts.  Most of the references the article uses have a similarly misleading or false nature.
posted by Richardmalter 22:10, 24 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Updated statement by Dy Yoshiaki Omura MD ScD 

message: I've removed the Columbia thing as it implied dishonesty and we can't do that in a BLP without a reliable source saying it explicitly. I also removed another sentence about accreditation that looked like original research. I made both these edits as an admin responding to a BLP complaint; I'd prefer not to get involved here as an editor in case I need to take further admin action. I'd also suggest removing the pseudoscience claim, in part because there's no source saying it about BDORT explicitly, which we need for a BLP, and in part because it doesn't really mean anything — it implies that science is good and pseudoscience is bad, but that's a POV, not a descriptive thing. However, that issue is less pressing than the Columbia allegation so I've left it in for the regular editors to decide. SlimVirgin (talk) 09:43, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: SlimVirgin, I understand your concerns, and I think we can live with your changes for now. We do have other sources we have discovered in the meanwhile, which we plan to introduce. I agree that in WP:BLP cases we should be extra careful and conservative and go the extra mile to avoid synthesis. I plan to propose some additional language to WP:NOR to clarify this point. I have started making some edits myself, which I have not done in many months, and I plan to add in some of the new material also. Thanks again for all your help, it is very much appreciated. Crum375 13:25, 27 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Columbia

message: Richard, please refrain from editing the article directly, as it is clear that you are representing the subject and have a conflict of interest. You are welcome to post your comments here on the Talk page for now. Crum375 03:43, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: What I write in the Talk page as my own private understanding of a primary source is not WP:OR, since this is not article space. All I am saying is that it would be confusing to the reader and would thus require some secondary source to interpret or explain it. The other quotes that we cite have no such confusion. Crum375 03:57, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag