Misplaced Pages

Talk:Yoshiaki Omura: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editNext edit →Content deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 11:17, 21 May 2006 editSnarkBoojum (talk | contribs)308 edits →Third-party sources: correct typo – I tend for some reason to unconsciously substitute this term← Previous edit Revision as of 11:22, 21 May 2006 edit undoCrum375 (talk | contribs)Administrators23,957 edits →Third-party sourcesNext edit →
Line 281: Line 281:


It is correct in my understanding. I have not been able to find any particular usage of the term Peak Muscle Resistance Testing other than that of Richard Gorringe, who was the practitioner under review. The commission and the experts it cites in its report explicitly equates the two, indicating, in my understanding, that the method employed was, in its understanding, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which it and the experts it consulted charactrize as a particular form of applied kinesiology. Adherents of the BDORT seem to mainatin the position that the disgraced physician did not correctly employ the BDORT and that therefore the findings of the commission have nothing to do with the BDORT. I see, in my reading of the commission's report, no basis for such distinction. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other third-party evaluations. I can state definitively that Yoshiaki Omura has stated that he has never in his career sought any third-party evaluation in the sense that that term would ordinarily be understood, ie, peer-reviewed independent review of some sort, but I have no way of documenting that statement on my part. ] 11:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC) It is correct in my understanding. I have not been able to find any particular usage of the term Peak Muscle Resistance Testing other than that of Richard Gorringe, who was the practitioner under review. The commission and the experts it cites in its report explicitly equates the two, indicating, in my understanding, that the method employed was, in its understanding, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which it and the experts it consulted charactrize as a particular form of applied kinesiology. Adherents of the BDORT seem to mainatin the position that the disgraced physician did not correctly employ the BDORT and that therefore the findings of the commission have nothing to do with the BDORT. I see, in my reading of the commission's report, no basis for such distinction. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other third-party evaluations. I can state definitively that Yoshiaki Omura has stated that he has never in his career sought any third-party evaluation in the sense that that term would ordinarily be understood, ie, peer-reviewed independent review of some sort, but I have no way of documenting that statement on my part. ] 11:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Here is my independent read of the situation. The MPDT document appears to be indictment by a NZ medical tribunal against a physician who, among other things, used the BDORT (which they equate to PMRT) on a specific patient. The tribunal relies on an expert who claims that BDORT/PMRT is experimental and not medically proven, and the board concluded that the physician should have disclosed that fact to the patient and gotten her informed consent a priori, which he didn't (Particular 5, 'proved' in per. 757).
The tribunal states its opinion about PMRT, for example here:
:''"363. We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognised diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible."''

The BDORT promoters, claim that the physician improperly applied the technique 'and was subsequently retrained'.
It is unclear if this tribunal is the equivalent of the U.S. FDA for example in terms of its overall expertise or access thereto, but it leaves the issue of independent outside experts in support of this technique open. In the most NPOV, this appears to be a controversial, medically unproven procedure. IMO this should be stated upfront in the lead-in paragraph, with the proper references included. ] 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Revision as of 11:22, 21 May 2006

First comments

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 20:56, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

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 21:08, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
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 01:51, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment utterly bizarre! Just goes to show that there's still one born every minute.. Looks like a cautious keep right now, but more research needed. Anybody with knowledge of this area? Just zis Guy you know? 22:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Keep - let me say firstly that I think this test is a load of bull*&%*. It has no scientific value, and no other value other than to propagate the insanity of some Japanese guy. Nevertheless, it's encyclopedic because it's notable. Keep. - Richardcavell 00:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – As the original creator of the article I would simply point out that the article as originally created, however imperfect, would seem to meet Wiki criteria. So far as I can determine the alterations/additions which prompted the nomination for deletion were made by a proponent, and that their insupportability speaks for itself. I'm a comparative newcomer to this process, so please pardon any infelicities on my part. Fucyfre 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

This article clearly stands up to Misplaced Pages criteria. There is no original/new research: the article refers to and points to in the external links already published research. The research mentioned is also by reputable sources - they are medical doctors, scientist etc all with the standard doctoral or medical doctor qualifications. The idea expressed here that the information or that the Test itself is unscientific is flatly incorrect. The research and methodology of the BDORT satisfies accepted scientific method: observation, hypothesis, induction/deduction, etc. The claim of "pseudoscience" itself needs to be examined. Are any of the commentators here scientifically trained to Ph.D level? especially regarding electromagnetism? The BDORT deals with electromagnetic phenomena. This is a neglected paradigm in orthodox western medicine, but not among all doctors, which is a key point. See for example the many presentations by US doctors, scientists etc at Google: Whole Person Healing Summit. In other words, to say that it has no scientific value etc, is an opinion, that is, it is non-neutral. Are the commentators here seriously claiming to be able to refute the many published research papers of around 50 recognized scientists/doctors around the world?! On what basis is this credible? It is of course not. This is an absurd idea. The original author of this page obviously, as with some of the other contributors to the page, does not 'like' the BDORT. But that is not sufficient. You cannot call it names because of that. They are giving their opinion throughout their text - which is not Misplaced Pages practice. Their comments are therefore very biased indeed. When I simply added further information, as for example in the case of the NZ doctor, rather than deleting the existing text, my additions - which were extra information about the subject - were deleted. This outrightly violates Misplaced Pages policy. This needs to be 100% clear. What is being objected to, on analysis, is that I am presenting information that does not cohere with the bias of the contributors. On that insufficient basis, the different Misplaced Pages criteria are being sited, but erroneously as I have explained. Phrases like "and that their insupportability speaks for itself" sounds impressive, but are not substantiated in any way given. Regarding my non-neutrality, I am of course an advocate of the BDORT. But I have aimed in my last big rewrite to only include information, facts, figures etc. If people wish to improve on the neutrality of the information I have written, then please do, but please also note, that that does not equate to deleting information - which is the basis of what an encyclopedia is for. ---- RichardMalter

  • Comment As you will note a RfD of this article was made, and a discussion has ensued. Presumably a consensus will in time emerge.

I would note that a Google search indicates that a Richard Malter is an active proponent of the BDORT as well as other ‘alternative’ approaches. These speak for themselves and require no characterization on my part. I would note that the characterization of the testimony of the scientific and medical authorities before the Medical Practioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand as provided by Richard Malter is factually incorrect. Malter indicates of the commission’s hearings in his edit of the original BDORT entry (since reverted) that ‘The Tribunal also noted that Richard Gorringe was not using the BDORT in the accepted correct way.’ In point of fact, as a reading of the commission’s report, as linked to, indicates, the commission explicitly chose to treat the distinction between BDORT and PMRT, which Richard Malter asserts it as having made, as nonexistant. See, eg, p 25, paragraph 100, which reads, in its entirety, ‘At each consultation Dr Gorringe ‘’muscle tested’’ Mrs Short by a procedure called ‘’Peak Muscle Resistance Training’’ which he used as a diagnostic tool. We refer to this procedure later and throughout this judgement as PMRT. It is also referred to as the Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT).’ Further, Professor Cannell, heard as expert witness by the commission, and with whose evidence and conclusions the commissions in its rulings explicitly and officially agreed, stated, as summarized by the commission in its official ruling on p 63, paragraphs 305, that, ‘Professor Cannell referred to some 14 references in the literature which examined scientifically whether there was any reliability in applied kinesiology (AK) methods, which include PMRT or BDORT. He stated that none of those studies reached the conclusion that PMRT was a reliable diagnostic technique.’ Professor Cannel is further quoted in the commission report as stating that, ‘In summary I find the descriptions of the AK methods and in particular the BDORT test to be inconsistent with known physical principles. Even if it were possible to create a “field” with these methods, AK methods and (BDORTing) 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 testing results are unreliable – and this idea is apparently supported by some organizations 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 some controlled scientific tests reveal no validity to these claims.’ It should be noted that this testimony was not merely offered before the committee but was judged by the committee in its final judgement to be, in fact, the judgement of the committee.

I am unaware of any objective, scientific, double-blind, peer-reviewed support for the claims of the proponents of the BDORT and I am also unaware of any such objective, scientific, peer-review having ever been sought by Dr Omura. If such exist, as opposed to patent advocacy, partisan, non-objective, non double-blinded, utterly unfounded in other-than anecdotalism and blind faith, let them be cited. A claim to scientific validity without subjecting of the claims to falsifiable, objective review, is by definition pseudo-science. Fucyfre


Reply "the commission explicitly chose to treat the distinction between BDORT and PMRT as non-existent" is a fact about the Tribunial proceedings and perspective, not about the BDORT. This is a confusion of topic on Fucyfre's part. The fact that Gorringe used the BDORT incorrectly (he should have used the Indirect BDORT method if the patient could not for any reason be tested directly) in fact makes the Tribunial decision not about the BDORT but about Gorringe. To focus on the case of Gorringe is therefore useless to this discussion. Of course it will serve the bias of someone who does not agree for whatever reason with the BDORT. Omura and other researchers of the BDORT have carried out peer-reviewed, scientific method, double and sometimes triple blinded research and experiments. If you have not read these papers it does not equate to that they do not exist. You are making an unfounded statement: I suggest you spend some more time reviewing the documentation available. You obviously have a bias against anything that is not mainstream medicine, it is against Misplaced Pages culture for you to invest your contributions to this page with your bias. Your comments about nerve and muscle appear to be based on ignorance (from Latin: not know]. I suggest you read James Oshman PhD on the internet re the 'living matrix', and Yoshio Manaka Ph.D MD, Chasing The Dragon's Tail as a good starting place. You are thinking in a reductionist cartesian mechanistic paradigm and so missing much of how things happen: see also Bruce Lipton Ph.D The Biology of Belief for some up-to-date biology regarding electromagnetism, and Becker - The Body Electric. Otherwise you are making comments on limited information. --RichardMalter
Here is a peer reviewed triple blinded study by Dr Phillip Shinnick et al Director of the Research Institue of Global Physiology, Behaviour & Treatment, Inc, published in the US medicalacupuncture journal. http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html

See: http://en.wikipedia.org/Scientific_method "identifiable features that distinguish scientific inquiry" - the methodology of the research of the BDORT follows all the features explained. This should now end the discussion of scientificness.

Please clarify

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)

  • Comment I think, to, in effect repeat myself, that the essential madness of the advocates of this methodology speaks for itself. – Spondoolicks, point taken. I haven't time free at the moment, but if there is consensual agreement I will attempt to clarify the description you found problematic. I have, by chance, some non-trivial familiarity with the madness of the BDORT and its adherents, and perhaps I may put it to some use. Fucyfre 15:22, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Organ tissue

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)

  • Comment You got the right idea with respect to what's available in the patent, per se, but Omura's papers and practice claim infinitely more for the BDORT than simply that. I am, as I've indicated, by chance, particularly familiar with this. If there's no objection I'll extend the entry to Omura's actual claims and applications a bit later today, when I have time to sit down with it. They will be externally verifiable as to Omura's claims in that they are thoroughly if not exhaustively available in the journal he runs, and also to a considerable degree on his website, which is cited. Omura is the chief architect of both the Japanese BDORT society and the US/New York incarnation which he runs from his apartment. As I say, I am familiar with this matter. I intend, however, only to make objective, verifiable observations in the entry which will withstand objective review and community insight/modification. Fucyfre 00:10, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
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 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

NEW COMMENT I am a research scientist asked to commment on the Bi-digital O-ring test by a group of scientist since I published on this phenomenon in two article published in the American Journal of Acupuncture and Medical Acupuncture and did a 300 patient double blind study in the 80's. I worked with Dr. Omura for eight years and have been assistant professor at New York Medical College for six years. I now director a research institute. I am completiing a book on this as an independent anlysis since I have not worked with Omura since 1990. It has great benefit to medicine and science which I will discuss when my work is published which has taken almost eight years. P.S. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 144.131.19.159 (talk • contribs) . the comment was added by the scientist i contacted to help with the discussion who was not familiar with Misplaced Pages websites and had diificulty navigating this page as he told me by email - i simply placed the comment in chronological order. RichardMalter It must be noted now that there is clearly not concensus on this topic, but two opposing approaches to it. The opposing parties may not continue as they like for eg deleting plain what, where when etc information i add to the topic if they do not want outrightly to breach Misplaced Pages protocols.

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)

REPLY http://www.medicalacupuncture.org/aama_marf/journal/vol14_3/case3.html - this scientist is refering to published results, as just one example; there are very numerous others published (on the net). You are ignoring these facts. You or anyone else have not replied to my earlier comments either. Furthermore when I did use such as references in the article revision, they were deleted, this is again antiWikipedia policy as you yourself infer. RichardMalter

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 07:37, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Selection of Published scientific papers

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

  • Comment I have checked every single 'independent' reference given above. Literally every single 'independent' reference is directly to Dr Omura or a close 'colleague.' Specifically, the first and most numerous references are to Dr Omura's own journal, which essentially consists of Dr Omura working from his apartment with a part time student assistant recruited by placing posters around the Columbia University campus area of Morningside Heights. I rather doubt these constitute a meaningful form of independent validation. The remaining 'independent' references are either to Dr Omura's annual conference for which he rents space within the School of International and Public Affair on the Columbia University campus each fall. It should be noted that while Dr Omura and his proponents are inclined to act as if this and other superficial 'associations' with Columbia constitute endorsement of the scientific validity of his 'researches' in point of fact SIPA is renting space to what has been represented to it as an international organization. It constitutes neither endorsement nor affiliation. If this point is doubted feel free to contact SIPA and enquire. The remaining 'independent' sources referenced in the list presented above by Richard Malter are simply to www.bdort.net, which is Omura's Japanese site. If this constitutes 'independent' endorsement then this notion of 'independence' similarly to the others, strains most rational or even quasi-rational definitions of the term. More to follow. Fucyfre 02:22, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


  • Re: last comment

As a last comment about this now absurd discussion. Here is just one of the above research links, with the contributors listed. Do you not know that co-researchers tend to be colleagues?! The details of room rental is nothing to do with science. This is a list of scientists on at least 4 continents. What is your qualification to be able to dismiss them? I am not asking these questions rhetorically? What is your scientific degree? What independent research on this topic have you carried out? Where is it published? What were your findings? Did they refute some or all of the BDORT research finding? What were your control parameters in your experiments? Was your research peer reviewed? Have you read Scientific Method? If you are not able to present refuting research then you cannot suggust what you are purporting. I think if this continues we will have to go to arbitration etc.

-DominicP. Lu, DDS, FAGD, FRSH, FICD, FICAE, Cert. ORT-DDS (2 President, American Society for Advancement of Anesthesia in Dentistry Professor of Oral Medicine, University of Pennsylvania Chief, Division of Special Care in Dentistry, and Director of Medical and Dental Externship Education Department of Dental Medicine Lehigh Valley Hospital of Penn State University Medical College -SHIGEHARU Fukuda Ph.D.􀌍􀊣, YOSHINARI Honda2􀊣, TATSUYA Ishihara2􀊣, SHINPEI Ushio Ph.D. 2􀊣 ,KANSO Iwaki2 􀊣, MASAO Ikeda2 􀊣 , MASASHI Kurimoto Ph.D. 2􀊣, YASUHIRO Shimotsuura MD.,F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD(5DAN) 􀌏 ) , and YOSHIAKI Omura MD., Sc.D., F.I.C.A.E., FACA,FAAIM, FRSM 4) 1)Amase Institute and 2)Fujisaki Institute, Hayashibara Biochemical Laboratories Inc., Okayama - Chieko Hirobe Ph.D, Cert. ORT-Pharm(1 Dan) 1), Midori Furukawa M.D.,Ph.D2), Nobuko HoriuchiD.D.S.,Ph.D, F.I.C.A.E. Cert. ORT-DDS(2Dan) 3), Toshio Tanaka4), Motomu Ohki M.S., F.I.C.A.E.(Hon.) 5) Yasuhiro Shimotsuura M.D.F.I.C.A.E, Cert. ORT-MD(5Dan) 5)6) - Yuko KOYAMA D.D.S. Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan), Hiroshi FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan) Masataka SUNAGAWA D.D.S., Ph.D., Akira FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., F.L.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-DDS (3Dan) Fukuoak Dental Clinic Research Laboratory of Integrative Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) -Naoki Ohata,D.D.S.,Ph.D.,Cert.ORT-DDS(1 Keiko Ohata,D.D.S.,Cert.ORT-DDS(1 Dan) Ohata Dental Clinic, Tokyo, Japan -FUJIMAKI Goro D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS FUJIMAKI Kotaro D.D.S., Ph.D. Pastoral Dental Office, Tokyo, Japan -V. P. Lysenyuk, M.D., Sc.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (2 Dan) National Medical University, Kiev, Ukraine (e-mail: lysenyuk@i.com.ua) - T. I. Usichenko, M.D. University of Greifswald, Germany -Momir Dunjic, M.D., M.Sc., Medicine Pristina, Institute Yugoslav-BDORT Association. -Slobodan Dunjic, M.D., M.Sc., Milan Jevremovic, M.D., Ph. -Miodrag Stanisic, M.D., Department -Nenad Sulovic, M.D. M.Sc., University Clinical Center Belgrade. -Nemanja Milincic, M.D.,M.Sc., University Clinical Center, Belgrade. -Dusan Vesovic, M.D., PhD, Pharmaceutical Slavisa Stanisic, M.D, Ph.D., Front, Belgrade. -Dejan Radovanovic, M.D., Pharmaceutical Montenegro (Yugoslavia) - IWASA, S., M.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (2 Dan) Orthopaedic Surgeon; Director of Brazilian Medical Association of Acupuncture; Director of Brazilian Omura’s Test Research Center; President of “Fundação ACL” - Foundation for development of the self-accomplishment capacity, communication and leadership of individual - JOJIMA,T, MD, F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (2 Dan) Management of Jojima Medical Clinic; Former President of Brazilian Medical Association of Acupuncture; Director of Brazilian Omura’s Test Research Center - JOJIMA, A..T.T, MD, Surgeon; Specialist in Acupunture; Member of Brazilian Omura’s Test Research Center - Toru Abo M.D., Ph.D. Prof., Department f Immunology, Niigata University Scholl of Medicine, Niigata 951-8510, Japan -The Near Future of BSE, CJD, Prion Disease, Meat Hygiene and near future of Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Toshimitsu MATSUBARA, BSAgr., D.V.M., ORT-DVM (1Dan) Director, Veterinary Science Department, Tokyo General Laboratory Former Professor and Veterinarian, School of Veterinary Medicine, Azabu University President of Veterinary Medical Society, Japan Bi-Digital O-Ring Test Medical Society Certified Lead Researcher of the Japan Society for Laser Surgery and Medicine - Yoshiro Fujii D.D.S. , Ph.D. Shin Kobe Dental Clinic, Kobe City, Hyogo Prefecture - Masataka SUNAGAWA D.D.S., Ph.D. Hiroshi FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan) Yuko KOYAMA D.D.S., Ph.D., Cert. ORT-DDS(1Dan) Akira FUKUOKA D.D.S., Ph.D., F.L.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-DDS(3Dan) Fukuoka Dental Clinic Research Laboratory of Integrative Medicine (Tokyo, Japan) - Mituhiro Nishimura M.D., Ph. D., Cert. ORT-MD(1Dan)1) Yasuhiro Shimotsuura M.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD(5Dan) 1),2), Yoshiaki Omura M.D., Sc.D., F.A.C.A., F.I.C.A.E., F.A.A.I.M., F.R.S.M. 3) 1) ORT Life Science Research Institute, Kurume, Fukuoka 2) Shimotsuura Clinic, Kurume, Fukuoka 3) Director of Medical Research, Heart Disease Research Foundation, USA - Tokuo Taketani M.D., Ph.D., F.I.C.A.E., Cert. ORT-MD (1Dan􀊣 􀊢Correspondence: Kurobe City Hospital FAX:+81-765-54-1022, taketani@med.kurobe.toyama.jp􀊣 - Heiichi Yano M.D., Ph.D.1), Chika Haryu,B.Sc. 2), Junko Ohkubo,D.D.S. 3) 1) Internal Medicine, Kashiwa Hospital, Jikei University School of Medicine, Chiba, Japan. 2) Division of Pharmacy, Institute of Total Life Aid, Ibaraki, Japan. 3) Ohkubo Dental Clinic,Ibaraki, Japan. - Koichi Kato M.D., Cert. ORT-MD (3 Dan), Daisuke Kato Onoda Hospital, Fukushima 􀊢Correspondence: Onoda Hospital􀀁 FAX􀉿0244􀊵22􀊵2125, e-mail:onodahp@pluto.plala.or.jp􀊣 - Hitoshi Ohzu, Prof. Emeritus, Waseda University, ( Dr.Techn. T. H. Wien) Director of the Institute for Laser Medicine. Neoark Co., Nakanocho, Hachiouji, Tokyo, E-mail: ohzu@neoark.co.jp http://bdort.net/pdf/6thSympoEngAbst.pdf --RichardMalter 03:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I will concede that I fail to grasp the relevance of an argument from authority to a purportedly scientific discussion. I will rest with Popper, Hansen, and Kuhn. Any arguments offered must stand or fall of their own weight. I am perfectly content to let the community evolve toward a reasoned judgement. Fucyfre 04:07, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Further Comment Dr Lu, incidentally, the DDS featured prominently in Richard Malter's most recent scientific cite, is the principal author of the following paper in whiich a successful experiment was 'scientifically' conducted to determine the application of BDORT as a diagnostic tool over long-distance telephone lines. Fucyfre 05:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

I will gradually add a lot more information to this page, which I will reference etc. There are currently a few technical inaccuracies and incomplete descriptions --RichardMalter 06:06, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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 07:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Is there an official guideline re length, please point me to it, thank you. Made changes, please see my summary note on History page.--RichardMalter 07:48, 18 May 2006 (UTC)


Philosophus, please see my comments again in the history page. A speculative cause and effect statement (about why something is not this or that becuase of this or that) is 100% POV. There is no way this can be validated. You also deleted plain facts/figures info - this is 100% contrary to Misplaced Pages protocol and is unacceptable.--RichardMalter 07:56, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Philosophus: POV re pseudoscience has been noted by another contributor. You are ignoring POV re attribution of cause and effect in 2nd sentence. You may not do this viz Misplaced Pages. Please see Misplaced Pages guidelines.--RichardMalter 08:03, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

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 08:16, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
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)

They may do so as this is their POV. When you can refute all the papers listed and linked to above and also the methodology then you can call it pseudo - . See discussion above re science or not. Please see NonNeutral idea. Please also note you may not delete neural fact/figures etc info. I have listed this page in the Alerts list for outside help. --RichardMalter 08:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Note I've just removed the defensive observation appended to the summary reference to the findings of the NZ authorities as the statement was not actually supported by the cite. The cite is simply a definition, on one of Omura's sites, of the 'indirect' method. The NZ authorities' report contains no such observation in any form. I'm thoroughly familiar with Omura's defense in re this matter that his sacrosanct guardianship of the correct application of the BDORT was violated. Indeed, Gorringe has attended Omura's seminars in New York since his censure by the NZ authorities, presumably to hone his 'correct' BDORT and other Omura-trained skills. Nonetheless, the simple fact is that this defenseive qualification is utterly unsupported by its cite. Fucyfre 11:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

You have again deleted a factual statment. I am simply stating that Gorringe did not use the BDORT correctly, which you acknowledge; reading the report, and comparing with correct BDORT application, this fact is verified. What is more straightforward than that. Please stop deleting what you dont like. Re "pseudoscience", counting the research scientist that has contributed here, and myself, if you study the discussion and revision comments, there are 3 people that agree that "pseudoscience" is not appropriate. There is not consensus on this, which means you may not go ahead and write what you like. I undeleting what you have unlawfully deleted. --RichardMalter 13:59, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

re science discussion: no one here can rationally ignore the research work on 4 continents by doctors and scientists i have linked to here - and declare "pseudo - ". Only a very biased POV can give such a view (as has already been noted repeatedly). I have taken out the "claim" that the BDORT has been used around the world, on the basis that it has in fact. These scientist/doctor are real, they exist, they have and do use the BDORT, in the different parts of the world mentioned. Only a wild POV can declare these facts as a claim. Vandalism The most common type of vandalism is the replacement of existing text with obscenities, page blanking, or the insertion of bad jokes or other nonsense. Your changes come under nonsense. If you continue I will report you for vandalism, which I will document to the Misplaced Pages community. --RichardMalter 14:14, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

To Fucyfre: Thank you for your contributions to Misplaced Pages. As a member of the Misplaced Pages community, I would like to remind you of Misplaced Pages's neutral-point-of-view policy for editors, which you appear to have violated (see above comments). In the meantime, please be bold and continue contributing to Misplaced Pages. Thank you! --RichardMalter 14:34, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

  • Comment I am aware that it is Omura's claim that the BDORT was inappropriately applied. Yours, however, is not my interpretation of the NZ commission's findings. Further, you will note that the NZ commission officially concluded, after consult with and testimony by independent experts, that the claims of BDORT, which it officially equated with Gorringe's application of what Gorringe termed as both BDORT and PMRT, were pseudoscientific, essentially nonsensical if not in fact magical, and that they had never in fact been subject to any positive evaluation by any independent, credible scientific form of evaluation. I am also aware that Omura was absolutely indifferent to the suffering of those who were treated. I am further aware that Omura is indifferent to outcomes for patients to the extent that he never troubles to follow up actual outcomes for patients if they do not again present at his seminars/clinics/workshops. If for example, a patient/subject presents at a session, is diagnosed and treatment prescribed, then appears at a second session and is diagnosed as having been cured of, eg, terminal cancer, then were never to again appear, perhaps having died, it would be represented in Omura's journal write up as a successful treatment, since the patient, having been diagnosed as cured never again was presented – and neither thought nor followup would ever occur in such an instance. It is a closed belief system, a faith, not subject to falsification, and essentially indifferent to outcome for patients save for those who are personal friends, in which Omura shields himself from the medical oversight authorities by having for many years not directly practiced on patients for payment but instead operates through his seminars/workshops in which physicians in attendance present the subject patients who are the subjects of the 'research' papers presented in Omura's journal. I am further aware that Omura has never, ever attempted to present his researches to what might be regarded as a standard, reputable, peer-reviewed publication of the likes of JAMA, or The Lancet. I have no interest in engaging in personal debate with a partisan of a deeply lunatic belief structure other than to present these statements, for what they may be worth, in a public form for consideration by the community at large. Fucyfre 17:44, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
  • Comment – As Omura and the BDORT as well as those various pseudoscientifc miracle accomplishments derived from the BDORT, eg, the healing powers of 'Special Sunrise and Sunset Solar Energy Stored Paper' are effectively interchangeable, it might be further stated that the Heart Disease Research Foundation, from which Omura derives a salary as Director of Medical Research, is itself an entity some might, upon external scrutiny, consider of dubious character. I am aware of its having been at least upon one significant occasion under very critical scrutiny by the New York State Attorney General's Office. A bit of superficial research will readily establish that its principal claim to fame is that it attempted at one time to sue General Motors as representative of the entire populace of the United States in a case which succeeded only in establishing federal precedent as to its absolute and utter lack of merit – in effect a simple attempt to loot General Motors in its own interests. This, of course, is simple personal opinion, but I suspect it would be the conclusion of more than a few. In any event the facts of the case are very much a matter of legal public record, as having established federal precedent and are routinely cited as such. Fucyfre 17:51, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Question

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)

AND, the world is FLAT !

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)

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 Misplaced Pages 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 10:05, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Acupuncture and homeopathy are indeed both pseudosciences. Needling (acupuncture without the meridian nonsense) might be credible. Users of homeopathy are indeed deluding themselves and those whom they treat with it. Acupuncture is a mixed bag. Knowing how they work is not essential to an acceptance of them in EBM, while whether they work above and beyond the placebo illusion (it basically has only subjective effects, and no significant objective effects on real biological illnesses) certainly is a necessary criterion for acceptance. -- Fyslee 13:00, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

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)

If there is no objection from the consensual community I'm removing the reference to BDORT being taught at two medical schools in Tokyo. No cite was given and there seems a clear, indeed an overwhelming, disposition on the part of the adherents in their attempts to claim established scientific validity for this particular form of pseudoscience to employ any association, however vague, as if it were affiliation. Witness the employ of the School of International and Public Affairs at Columbia to create an aura of legitimacy. If, in fact, BDORT is part of the curriculum of an established, reputable medical school, note to that effect would be, of course, appropriate. This entry, however, presents no cite, and I find no reference in a Google search to BDORT being part of the curriculum at any known reputable medical school. In a sense this reminds me of a book on UFOs I read very early in my youth, on the dust jacket of which the author claimed affiliation with a major observatory – Palomar, if memory serves. In fact, the 'affiliation' was that he sold guide books along the road to the observatory. Fucyfre 18:31, 19 May 2006 (UTC)

Reply by --RichardMalter 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC) and CURRENT SUMMARY OF EDIT DISPUTE please do not edit this comment

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 et al sources. Deletion again of these will be clear breach of Misplaced Pages 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 non-original reserach evidence, which is 100% bias on your parts. You are also deleting straightforward reported fact, such as many 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 have expressed clearly non-agreement with the biases/POVs of Fucyfre, Fyslee, Philosophus, and Spondoolicks . 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 Misplaced Pages criteria - which I subsequently demonstrated (see above links) did. I will now improve the article now in line with Misplaced Pages ideas. I have requested larger Misplaced Pages community help on this page.--RichardMalter 04:52, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

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)

PS: I would further state the obvious for the benefit of those disinclined to acknowledge the obvious: The PubMed cites are simply summaries pointing to Omura's own journal, no more independent validation than a US Library of Congree listing of works 'proving' that aliens built the pyramids would constitute independent confirmation of that 'theory.' Fucyfre 05:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Policies

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 07:14, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted to my previous version re above. Please improve in line with Policies.--RichardMalter 10:55, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

Comment

It seems to me that the only significance attributable to the BDORT justifying it's inclusion in Misplaced Pages is precisely that it is a form of pseudoscience. It has no other claim to significance of which I am aware. If the definition of pseudoscience is, eg. Merriam-Webster's 'a system of theories, assumptions, and methods erroneously regarded as scientific' , or that of Misplaced Pages's current entry for that term, 'a term applied to a body of alleged knowledge, methodology, belief, or practice that is portrayed as scientific but diverges substantially from the required standards for scientific work or is unsupported by sufficient scientific research,' pseudoscience, then the BDORT, if one simply considers the claims made, cited, by its adherents, juxtaposed with the evaluation of the NZ authorities, cited, which is the only objective evaluation made by an external source known to me, qualifies. If the BDORT is not pseudoscience, I have no idea what is.

The particular form of the entry at present is, I agree, somewhat problematic. It reflects the fact that an adherent has consistently attempted to impose a form upon the entry which would present the BDORT as established, reputable science. It seems to me that an entry more nearly like the initial entry (of my making, to note an interest) is more appropriate. The facts would then, I think, better speak for themselves. The entry as just reverted by RichardMalter is now once again a billboard for the wonders of BDORT in my estimation. Fucyfre 11:11, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

There's obviously a problem with sources here. The article has to be in accordance with all our content policies. These state jointly that Misplaced Pages publishes majority and significant-minority views which have already been published by reliable, third-party sources. We represent the different viewpoints in proportion to how many reliable sources hold them. That is, we don't given disproportionate or undue weight to minority views. We also don't use self-published sources except in articles about themselves; that is, we can use John Doe's personal website in an article about John Doe, but we can't use it anywhere else.
Most of the statements in this article are not referenced. Some sentences have dead embedded links after them. Other points refer to Yoshiaki Omura's journal, and the article says the two principle research bodies were founded by him. Therefore, we have to be very careful, because it sounds as though we're dealing with self-published material. Does anyone know anything about his journal? SlimVirgin 14:36, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I do. It is a journal he publishes out of his apartment in the Washington Heights area of Manhattan. He is listed as editor and it is in fact essentially a one man show. He employs students recruited from the Columbia University area by having notices posted on bus stops in the area, and these constitute his sole staff. the board listed in the journal itself is a list of adherents/accolytes/whatever who are not actually consulted. Essentially, Omura publishes himself and his adherents and gives himself and them titles, eg, F.I.C.A.E. Omura has never, ever submitted to an independent refereed journal. Fucyfre 14:51, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

I will assume, then, unless corrected, that self-published sources are taken as valid only to the limited extent of documenting claims as having been made by proponents – not for the actual validity of the claims made, which require external, verifiable independent sources.Thus, presumably, cites to Omura's publication and to his websites in New York and Japan are valid only to the extent of documenting claims as having, in fact, been made by proponents – but not their actual validity. If I am in error in this understanding as to Wiki policy, please feel free to correct me. Fucyfre 23:32, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

That's correct. The material in Omura's journal and websites is evidence only of claims he or the author have made. They should be presented as "According to X writing in Y," for example, and then a citation should be given in the form of a footnote, Harvard reference, or embedded link. You should also be careful not to include too many of Omaru's claims. If he is the only person writing about this, and his journal is the only one promoting it, then it's not very notable and we shouldn't say too much about it, and possibly shouldn't say anything. Are there any third-party sources at all? SlimVirgin 10:06, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The journal acts, as any other professional/technical journal acts, as a 'holding space' for related research material. It certainly contins some articles by Omura; but it also contains many research papers from many other reliable sources (by which I mean MDs/Ph.Ds) on 4 continents of the planet. This diverse (geographical) range of contributors to the journal means the idea that it is 'non-independent' doesn't stand up. As just one example, please see on this page a list of contributors to just one of the external links cited. The claim of 'self-published' across the board is simply not the case. I have already addressed the fact that on planet earth co-researchers or/and researchers in a related field tend to be colleagues. This fact does not lessen the scientific validity of their research (in any field). Again where a journal is published, and who is the editor and what colour their hair is might be interesting to someone who does not like Omura/BDORT, but of very little relevance to this article on Misplaced Pages. Again the first paragraph is speculation, constitutes original research as it tries to establish new analysis unpublished elsewhere and so again is clear POV. Please improve in the next few hours, or I will do it.--RichardMalter 23:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


The description of the BDORT 'mechanics' that you have again reverted to are incorrect and so I will swap it for the paragraph that I wrote that you have deleted again, if you do not do so, as simple point of accuracy. --RichardMalter 00:04, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

  • I give up. I cannot endlessly engage in an attempt to breathe an element of sanity into madness. I literally cannot spare further time to engage in a contest of wills at endless length with a true believer. Perhaps this is my limitation, perhaps it is that of the collaborative process which Misplaced Pages represents. So be it. To quote that great scientific authority, Dr Frank N Furter of Rocky Horror Picture Show fame, 'Madness takes its toll.' Fucyfre 00:13, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Third-party sources

Are there any third-party sources who discuss the bi-digital o-ring test, either positively or negatively? If so, could someone direct me to them, please? I've looked at the New Zealand document cited but it doesn't say much about it and seems to equate it to Peak Muscle Resistance Testing, saying BDORT is another term for that. Is that correct? SlimVirgin 10:14, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is correct in my understanding. I have not been able to find any particular usage of the term Peak Muscle Resistance Testing other than that of Richard Gorringe, who was the practitioner under review. The commission and the experts it cites in its report explicitly equates the two, indicating, in my understanding, that the method employed was, in its understanding, the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, which it and the experts it consulted charactrize as a particular form of applied kinesiology. Adherents of the BDORT seem to mainatin the position that the disgraced physician did not correctly employ the BDORT and that therefore the findings of the commission have nothing to do with the BDORT. I see, in my reading of the commission's report, no basis for such distinction. There are, to the best of my knowledge, no other third-party evaluations. I can state definitively that Yoshiaki Omura has stated that he has never in his career sought any third-party evaluation in the sense that that term would ordinarily be understood, ie, peer-reviewed independent review of some sort, but I have no way of documenting that statement on my part. Fucyfre 11:08, 21 May 2006 (UTC)


Here is my independent read of the situation. The MPDT document appears to be indictment by a NZ medical tribunal against a physician who, among other things, used the BDORT (which they equate to PMRT) on a specific patient. The tribunal relies on an expert who claims that BDORT/PMRT is experimental and not medically proven, and the board concluded that the physician should have disclosed that fact to the patient and gotten her informed consent a priori, which he didn't (Particular 5, 'proved' in per. 757). The tribunal states its opinion about PMRT, for example here:

"363. We therefore accept that PMRT is not a plausible, reliable or scientific technique for making medical decisions. We find there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity. It therefore follows that reliance on PMRT to make diagnoses to the exclusion of conventional and/or generally recognised diagnostic/investigatory techniques is unacceptable and irresponsible."

The BDORT promoters, claim that the physician improperly applied the technique 'and was subsequently retrained'. It is unclear if this tribunal is the equivalent of the U.S. FDA for example in terms of its overall expertise or access thereto, but it leaves the issue of independent outside experts in support of this technique open. In the most NPOV, this appears to be a controversial, medically unproven procedure. IMO this should be stated upfront in the lead-in paragraph, with the proper references included. Crum375 11:22, 21 May 2006 (UTC)