Misplaced Pages

• 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)

I did add to the intro that it had not been subjected to a double-blind trial, which the New Zealand case mentioned, and had not been submitted for peer review, which makes the point in an understated way. Perhaps too under-stated, I don't know, but it's important not to use language in the intro that appears designed solely to discredit the test, unless it really is something that multiple good sources have condemned. I worry that one case in Wellington, New Zealand is not quite enough to establish that this is a scurrilous thing.

On the other hand, the lack of third-party sources is worrying, and in fact it makes the article possibly a candidate for an AfD, or for redirecting to and merging the contents into the page about Omaru. Therefore, some third-party sources are needed to establish notability. They needn't be scientific journals; any newspaper or magazine article would do. Is there anything? SlimVirgin 11:37, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

I'm not aware of anything. I'll see if I can dig anything up, but I don't know that there is anything. Granted I'm new at this, but my initial entry was infinitely shorter and attempted to simply present a brief description of the BDORT, and link to BDORT proponent page and to the NZ commission. I did characterize it as pseudoscience but that seemed to me valid in that it seemed to meet the definition in that proponents claim scientific validity without having obtained or attempted to obtain any external confirmation of their claims. Fucyfre 11:53, 21 May 2006 (UTC)