Talk:BDORT

Notice: Richardmalter is banned from editing this article or its talk page indefinitely.

The user specified has been found by the Arbitration Committee to have edited a related article inappropriately. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Yoshiaki Omura. Posted for the Arbitration Committee by Newyorkbrad 19:10, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

See also prior discussion and mediation history of this topic under a previous name, including eight (8) archived pages, as well as this related ArbCom case.

New entry

I created this entry by modifying the Yoshiaki Omura entry to focus on BDORT, as that is the primary subject. Crum375 22:45, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura now redirected here

I have now redirected the Yoshiaki Omura entry to here. Crum375 03:16, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Page histories

I've merged the page histories as requested, but I left the talk pages separate, which is standard practise. Let me know if you'd like those to be merged too. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 09:48, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the much appreciated help, SlimVirgin. I believe leaving the Talk pages separated is better, since the current BDORT entry is focused on the procedure, while the old Yoshiaki Omura entry was focused on the man. This way, despite the merge, there is a logical distinction between their respective Talk pages. Thanks again, Crum375 11:30, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Yoshiaki Omura article separate from BDORT article

The results of separate AfDs for the Yoshiaki Omura article and the BDORT article were to keep each article. Why are the articles now merged? -- Jreferee 16:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

• Here is the history as I understand it:
  • There were originally 2 separate articles created, BDORT and Yoshiaki Omura (YO)
  • There was an AfD ("AfD1") initiated by Philosophus (P) to delete BDORT as non-notable
  • The consensus in AfD1 (which convinced P) was to retain BDORT, as sufficient notability was shown with the New Zealand Tribunal's (NZT) report
  • Shortly thereafter, there was consensus on the Talk pages of both articles to merge the 2 articles into one, entitled YO, with BDORT redirecting into it
  • After a few months, there was an AfD (AfD2) to delete the YO article (which now included BDORT), based on an assertion that there was still insufficient notability, despite the NZT report
  • AfD2 ended in 'Keep', as YO's notability is established via his BDORT invention, which is described in the published NZT report, which confers notability
  • For several more months BDORT and YO remained combined under the YO title and focus
  • Near the end of 2006, an Arb case was filed asserting various allegations, including BLP violations by one party, along with tendentious editing, COI, sockpuppetry, WP:CIVIL, WP:NPA, etc. by other parties
  • The Arb case was decided unanimously, with findings and remedies as noted above
  • At this point we decided to maintain the same substantial information as in the YO article, but shift the focus to the BDORT procedure rather than its inventor, thus changing the title to BDORT and redirecting YO to it, while retaining the old YO Talk page and its archives for reference purposes
  • The current article is now focused on the BDORT procedure, while YO, who does not have direct notability, is redirected to BDORT, thereby reducing BLP concerns

Hopefully this clarifies the history and current status. I myself joined this article right after the original YO/BODRT merge took place and was not involved in that decision. Thanks, Crum375 17:02, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

BLP

Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons applies to all living persons in an entry. Since the topic is BDORT and not Dr. Omura, the article needs to be written focusing on BDORT, with only necessary reference to Dr. Omura. For example, the sentence "Dr. Omura's initial BDORT patent application was rejected by the US Patent Office" brings the article under BLP because it addresses Dr. Omura's actions. It may not violate BLP, but it none the less brings the article under BLP. Given the history of this topic (e.g. all the way to ArbCom), it may be best to try to reword the article to focus only on the device rather than people with the goal of removing unnecessary biography material from the article about a living person. If the sentence "Dr. Omura's initial BDORT patent application was rejected by the US Patent Office" were written something like "The first time the US Patent Office reviewed the BDORT technique, it was rejected," this would remove some living person biography material. Where the article reads "according to his own account", isn't that more about Dr. Omura rather than BDORT? (Generally, the news article pharase "according to" is not appropriate for an encyclopedic article.) Here is another example. Look at the sentences "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." That is a quote from one of the cited sources. There is no BLP information in that quote. It is all about the technique. That is what the BDORT article needs to move towards - being all about the technique. -- Jreferee 16:30, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Good points - I will try to implement them. Thanks, Crum375 16:33, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I tried to implement your suggestion - please review. I do have a question here:

The BDORT is capable, according to Omura and his colleagues, of a wide range of applications in the diagnosis, prescription of treatment, and evaluation of efficacy of treatment of, amongst others: heart conditions, cancers, 'pre-cancers,' allergic reactions, viral and bacterial infections, a range of organic and/or environmental stresses, as well as the precise location of acupuncture points and meridians previously unknown or inappropriately identified.

How do you suggest to remove the 'according to' in this case? Crum375 16:46, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

Use the text from the U.S. Patent. That text was reviewed and approved by the United States and has the effect of a private federal law. Some more living person items: "Gorringe guilty of malpractice" may be refocused (if true) as BDORT's use was the main problem behind a malpractice finding. "Seminars held by Dr. Omura" has to do with Omura, not BDORT. The focus should be changed to BDORT and course credit. "With further effort and the assistance of Dr. Omura's 'associates in clinical fields and basic sciences, both in Japan and the United States', the USPTO finally issued the BDORT patent in 1993" may be rewritten "After receiving expert testimony regarding BDORT, the USPTO finally issued the BDORT patent in 1993." Remove "Omura claims that it is possible" and replace it with whatever the U.S. Patent says. There are other changes that should be made. Omura should be mention as the inventor, but most of the other references to Omura might not be relevant. -- Jreferee 01:51, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

To my knowledge, the USPTO only ruled on the basic BDORT, not on any of the variants that are in the section you are referring to. Also, I believe the USPTO does not rule on the merit of a patented process or device, only that it is novel and appears to be non-trivial improvement over anything else. But again, they don't address the variants AFAIK, so it would be moot anyway for the 'variants'. In any case, I'll carefully review your suggestions and try to act on all of them. Thanks, Crum375 02:18, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I made some edits along the lines you recommend. If you have further suggestions, please let me know. You can also try to edit the article directly - I can always tweak it if necessary. Thanks for all your suggestions and efforts so far. Crum375 14:10, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

I Saw the requests for comments, I am happy to look soon1garden 15:32, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

User:Richardmalter has filed a request for comment on this article citing concerns with biographies of living people and original research, and has posted a list of suggesteed changes on his user talk page. All editors should be aware that Richard Malter is banned from editing this article or its talk page, and that making edits on behalf of a banned editor, or proxy editing is a bannable offense. (That is, editors who make Richard Malter's suggested changes face the possibility of being banned from this article as well.) Editors are encouraged to discuss Richard's suggested changes, and if there is a broad consensus that the changes are reasonable, to implement them. Unilateral changes on behalf of a banned editor, especially changes against consensus, are likely to be viewed as improper proxy editing. Thatcher131 15:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Pry

According to Microsoft word, Pry means to interfere, snoop, meddle etc, theefore I changed it to 'prise', is this not a word used in other parts of the world? Ram4eva 14:01, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

To "pry apart", as to separate by force, is by far the more common term. Googling the term "pry apart" comes up with 42,200 hits, vs. only 778 for "prise apart". Crum375 15:46, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, thanks for your explanation, Ram4eva 16:54, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Comments

I read much of the information about this topic, its complicated and interesting! I have no coflict of interest. My notes are these and I read also the ideas of richardmalter. I read some Arbitration messages in addition. 1. I think that the article has been written in a way, which attempts to form 'a point ' and has much POV. 2. The article has very confused information. I know that he is forbidden by the Arbitration however his idea, Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand did not use this technique - bi digital O-ring test is exact. The article is not exact. He says that there are three sources, which say that this is true and I think that this is true - is my thought. So it must be written again. The Tribunal speaks about ' PMRT ' generally and copies Richard Warwick in which he says about his techniques. 3. Richardmalter says that n the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body is not true and not citationed. But New York State Board of Medicine (NYSBM) is not a medical body (educational), therefore I think that I disagree with him - it is not a medical body , as the Tribunal is. But the idea, in the only well-known independent evaluation of the BDORT , is like estimating. 4. About the technical accuracy I that we must examine this with an expert, no? I think like it was mentioned befores, that to use the exact words of the patent is the best way otherwise there are mistakes. But its important to be right about the details. 5. This It is unclear from the tribunal's report whether the 'Omura materials' presented by Gorringe are related to any distinction between BDORT and PMRT or not, since paragraph 290 itself seems to equate them, and the tribunal seems to also equate BDORT and PMRT and use them interchangeably in the rest of the Wellington report is 'original research' and intepretation of statements of the Tribunal. So I think we have to make full edits to this article.

1garden 10:34, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Here are my initial replies to 1garden:

1. I think that the article has been written in a way, which attempts to form 'a point ' and has much POV.

   Let's address each item specifically and avoid generalities.

2. The article has very confused information. I know that he is forbidden by the Arbitration however his idea, "Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand" did not use this technique - bi digital O-ring test is exact. The article is not exact. He says that there are three sources, which say that this is true and I think that this is true - is my thought. So it must be written again. The Tribunal speaks about 'PMR' generally and copies Richard Warwick in which he says about his techniques.

   Please read the article carefully. There is no mention of 'PMR' anywhere. There were two separate cases filed against Dr. Gorringe, reviewed and ruled upon by the New Zealand Tribunal, which we call NZT1 and NZT2 for short. In NZT1 the NZT refers to Gorringe's technique interchangeably as 'PMRT' and 'BDORT', and seems to equate them in its report as synonymous (e.g. para. 290). In NZT2, where the Tribunal ruled that a patient died as a result of Gorringe's reliance on BDORT to the exclusion of conventional diagnostic methods, the NZT refers to the technique strictly as 'BDORT' - PMRT is not mentioned anywhere in NZT2.

3. Richardmalter says that "in the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body" is not true and not citationed. But "New York State Board of Medicine (NYSBM)" is not a medical body (educational), therefore I think that I disagree with him - it is not "a medical body", as the Tribunal is. But the idea, "in the only well-known independent evaluation of the BDORT", is like estimating.

   I agree about the NYSBM, but I am not sure what you mean by "is like estimating". We are not aware of any other evaluation of BDORT by any mainstream scientific or medical body. When one is found, we will gladly add it. Richard Malter appears to officially represent Dr. Omura, and if they are aware of such an evaluation they can supply it at any time.

4. About the technical accuracy I that we must examine this with an expert, no? I think like it was mentioned befores, that to use the exact words of the patent is the best way otherwise there are mistakes. But its important to be right about the details.

   We do use the words from the patent, summarize them in the lead and link to the exact words from the patent. If you see a specific inaccuracy anywhere, please point to it.

5. This "It is unclear from the tribunal's report whether the 'Omura materials' presented by Gorringe are related to any distinction between BDORT and PMRT or not, since paragraph 290 itself seems to equate them, and the tribunal seems to also equate BDORT and PMRT and use them interchangeably in the rest of the Wellington report" is 'original research' and intepretation of statements of the Tribunal.

   This statement explains the apparent discrepancy we have in the NZT1 source, since para. 290 seems to equate PMRT and BDORT by saying: "PMRT (or BDORT)", yet it says that the Omura materials were different. We can't just leave this apparent contradiction in the source, as it will confuse our readers, but of course we must avoid original research. We had a discussion about this issue on the Talk page (see SlimVirgin's comment from 10:05, 29 January 2007 UTC) and this is what we came up with. If you can think of a better way to explain this paragraph while avoiding WP:OR, please suggest it.

Thank you for your comments overall. Crum375 13:55, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

I answer your points. I read the article carefully before. The article has very confused information. It must begin at the beginning to understand it. The statement by the tribunal is that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura. Also the inventor is the expert and he gave the statement, which was not his technique, confirms the tribunal. Also I compared the patent specification with the description, which Gorringe gives in his statements, which are not the same. The tribunal and Dr Omura says the same thing, therefore this is confirmed. It is possible to write the disorder the opposite way that this is now: "it is unclear from the tribunal of Gorringe if it were about the 'BDORT', because the tribunal made the statement that it is exact that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from the technique of Dr. Omura". Otherwise its interpretation and 'forms one point' and is not neutral. Also it is I think correct that the tribunal is not expert on this technique 'BDORT'. And publishers are not experts in addition. Its sensible that the expert give statement what is his technique. So the article is not exact. I think we need contact the expert in this technique to make sure it is exact - like journalists.

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.

I copy the patent, I studied. The main argument in tribunal is it if this technique is subjectively or objectively and reliable to make. There are many quotes about this point. But I agree with Richardmalter what he says for this point.

The form of the test is the subjective evaluation of a patient's opposing muscle strength consisting of the diagnostician employing thumb and forefinger of each hand, formed in the shape of an O, to attempt to force apart an O shape formed by the patient who places the fingertips of their thumb and one of their remaining fingers together. At the same time, the patient holds a slide of organ tissue, a sample of medication, potential allergen, etc, in their free hand, or is otherwise 'probed' at an appropriate acupuncture point by the use of a metal rod or laser pointer. The diagnostician then uses their perception of the strength required to force apart the patient's 'O-Ring' of thumb and one of the remaining fingers to assess the patient's health.

this says many times that the technology is subjectively. It is not neutral for this reason, because it makes an opinion. But solution is only expert description exactly, copy the patent specification. If not then this is very clear a ' POV '.

So I will start edits soon. 1garden 12:37, 12 April 2007 (UTC)

OK, I made edits, like discussed. I had help with English too. I made all points that I noted. Also I delete 'alternative medicine' and 'AK' because citations are very poor and makes more confusion because this is not clear about if it is, also there is neutrality dispute in these articles. Also if not about BDORT I took it out. Now it is much clearer and shorter to read as well, like an encyclopdea article1garden 13:18, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Focus on the procedure

We made extra efforts to focus on the procedure and not the man. The latest edits seemed to go back to the man. We had serious issues with WP:BLP that we'd like to avoid. Crum375 14:07, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Please dont delete back again, I explain now!. It takes me more time to operate the pages. Crum makes a good point - I did this before. Now also I think 'BDORT-related courses' should be at end ,before the reference list and there is no reason Remote Application should be in front page , way this technique among all others? So I make these changes.1garden 14:54, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

This is very frustrating, my attempts to edit the article! 'Philosphus' should know that I am not a 'proxy' - I understand this word it is insulting! I had a discussion with crum375 and I formed my answers and he did not answered for some days in any other points. I waited, then, I made the edits. Then Crum375 said that the article was to be concentrated on only the procedure. Which is a good point, however, he did not form other notes. So I did this, I made these extra edits, but I do not understand why everyone deletes back now?. If there is no objection to the points, which I formed and Crum formed no extra points , then this is agreement, no? I do not think I need to repeat, what points I already wrote. The article is certainly very confused. Like the Waldorf education article, someone said , it is like two opinions, which are fighting in the article, in order to say both things. Also, it certainly written in a way that 'makes one point', not a neutral encyclopedia. This is the problem. I explain before how. No one wants to change the article?

1garden 10:40, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

1garden, here are my suggestions to you:

• Take one small item or issue at a time - do not try to tackle the entire article at once
• Do not assume that if you don't see comments or feedback you have consensus or agreement - usually it's quite the opposite
• Since this article went through prolonged mediations as well as a long ArbCom case, it is very sensitive, so instead of editing the article directly, it would be much more effective to present any ideas you have here in the Talk page and wait for comments. Again - please do it for one item at a time, like: "I think item X should be Y, for reason Z" - then wait for us to address it - I assure you we will do so promptly
• For efficiency, I would suggest you start with the item that bothers you the most, and proceed in that order
• We do want to improve the article - but it has to be done the right way and incrementally - mass changes are more likely to be reverted

Thank you for your understanding. Crum375 10:58, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

First I would like to start with the neutrality of the BDORT definition .

> I wish to know why we have to use sentences like : > "diagnostician subjectively evaluates the patient's finger strength " > and :" The form of the test is the subjective evaluation of a patient's > opposing muscle strength... " using words or sentence like: subjective or > " The diagnostician then uses their perception of the strength ....." > is obviously not neutral.? I think using this word it's like giving > personal opinion.

I also wish to suggest that we use the: United States Patent and Trademark Office|US Patent Office:

The Patent description is:

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.

For example: say three different MD are looking at the same X-REY ,MRI or CT But only one of them can find the correct information, does it mean that X-REY,MRI or CT Is a subjective diagnostic tool ? Or does it mean that perhaps the doctors that couldn't find the correct information are inexperience?

In conclusion I think that , using words like subjective or objective we are in fact stating an opinion Which contradict neutrality .Thank you 1garden 19:47, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

1garden, I ask you again, if you don't mind, to please focus on one issue at a time. This way it will be easier for us to address your concerns. I will pick from your points above one issue: the description the BDORT technique as 'subjective'. As you know, as editors, we are not allowed to form our own opinion about issues, or else we'd be in violation of WP:NOR and WP:V. In this case we have the New Zealand Tribunal,[1] a respectable government body, supported by reputable mainstream scientists, who tell us that the BDORT technique is subjective. We have no counter claim, by any other independent verifiable and reliable published source, that the BDORT is not subjective. Hence we call it 'subjective'. Crum375 22:02, 29 April 2007 (UTC)

Very sorry, but so confused, many points are together. No this wrong logic, which you say. Many WP articles have topics, which they are controversal but a fundamental description is given first, which is neutral way. It is 'POV' not to do in such a way. Also I searched tribunal report - he does not say that bdort technique is subjective - there is much discussion over this however nowhere it says "bdort is subjective". It is 'OR', to say tribunal said that is bdort subjective. It says, this about 'PMRT' however says also that, gorringe has different technique from omura technique - this is large basis for disorders I said this before. I understand, why you and many other people fight over this for so long time because of this confusion. I am attempt to stop the fighting. Also repeat: the article has very confused information. It must begin at the beginning to understand it. The statement by the tribunal is that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura. This is very clear statement about it. Also the inventor is the expert and he gave the statement, which was not his technique, confirms the tribunal. Also I compared the patent specification with the description, which Gorringe gives in his statements, which are not the same. The tribunal and Dr Omura says the same thing, therefore this is confirmed. It is possible to write the confusion the opposite way that this is now:it is unclear from the tribunal of Gorringe if it were about the 'BDORT', because the tribunal made the statement that it is exact that the technique which Dr. Gorringe practices is different from the technique of Dr. Omura. Otherwise its interpretation and forms one point and is not neutral. Of course someone that not like this technique will choose one way in the confusion but other people who like this technique will choose other way to understand it. This is opinion. Only possible here to be neutral. Your suggestion makes editors opinon. Like in journalism I do, everyone knows that from same facts many editors can make different story and intepreting. Also it is I think correct that the tribunal is not expert on this technique 'BDORT'. And publishers are not experts in addition. Its sensible that the expert give statement what is his technique. So the article is not exact. It is impossible to say that current version is neutral. To begin must have basic description. Then find out the confusion and make simple for the reader. At the moment there is much 'POV' and 'original research' to make a point. So only possibilitiy for neutral is copy patent words - do you agree?

1garden 13:33, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

1garden, I apologize, but I am having difficulty following your long response above. Can you please focus on one short point at a time, and keep your response short? I will take just one point from your above message - the synonymity of PMRT vs. BDORT and the subjective nature of the procedure. The NZT clearly uses both BDORT and PMRT interchangeably in its first report, and then uses only the term BDORT in its second report. This is described in the article here. If you will search the NZT report for the term 'subjective', you will find many places where the various experts, whose reports are accepted by the Tribunal, call the procedure 'subjective'. We have no verifiable published evidence from any neutral mainstream experts disputing this point. Crum375 14:06, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Im sorry, I will try make shorter replies. I did search the Tribunal report of case of Gorringe for this word 'subjective'. It is there many times but not, "BDORT is subjective". They talk of muslce tests generally speaking. To make this that they said "BDORT is subjectively made" is 'original resaarch' - the tribunnal does not say it actually. Like I say, there is obvious confusion - this is fault of tribunal! But problem for this article. I spend long time looking at this report! It said, At each consultation Dr Gorringe "muscle tested" Mrs Short by a procedure called "Peak Muscle Resistance Testing" which he used as a diagnostic tool. We refer to this procedure later and throughout this judgment as PMRT. It is also referred to as Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT). So they make confusion. But they also said that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura. Did you see this one? So conclusion is that they call what Gorringe does PMRT and also BDORT and also muslce test, but they state Gorringe does not use same technique as this DR omura, the patented one. I read this DR omura statement too. He say the same thing. Richardmalter make this point that he wrote to me on my homepage. I know he is forbidden but the point is true. Not all his points true - but this one is exact. I also did simple thing, I compare patent descripsion with this DR gorringe discripsion of t4echinqe he used, and saw that was different. So the Tribunal saw this that it is different, the two, and they said this.

So summary is:

1. Tribuanl make confusion about name they give to this DR Gorringe techniques, they say one time BDORT and one time PMRT and and also say muscle test. 2. Tribunal say that Gorringe use different techniques to this DR omura - who made the patent. 3. This article is about the technique of this DR omura. 4. So we have to give description of this technique of this DR omura not which this DR gorringe he used. 5. only option is use only patent words, because we not experts. If we copy patent then we dont make mistakes. 6. If we say that this DR Gorringe used BDORT we make contraditction of Tribunal report. 7. There is editors choice available because confusion of Tribunal report makes 'door' for interpretation. So we have to be sure to be neutral. Only way possible is give 'blank' description. If we are newspaper then we make editorial 'point of view'. But for encyclopedia this not allowed. So only blank facts are neutral.

Sorry again long answer, but is clear now? I want to look at more articles but this take so long time!

1garden 13:48, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Here is my response, which I will number according to your points above:

1. The NZT is our only reliable source (with Quackwatch reviewing the NZT reports). They don't 'make confusion' - they simply equate PMRT with BDORT, and since they are the only reliable sources we have, we rely on them to evaluate and interpret the procedure. Any other evaluation or interpretation would be OR, which we are not allowed to do. In any case, we explain the PMRT/BDORT synonymity issue in a separate sub-section in the article.
2. The NZT clearly equate BDORT and PMRT. What they say is that they can't use Omura's materials. We explain that in the article. Paragraph 290 in the NZT-1 report explains that BDORT and PMRT are considered equivalent by the NZT in NZT-1, and in NZT-2 only BDORT is used - PMRT is not mentioned at all.
3. This article is about BDORT. BDORT is described by Dr. Omura and the NZT. The NZT is the only reliable source that we may use to objectively and scientifically assess the technique.
4. We rely on the NZT as a secondary source to describe and evaluate the technique, and also provide references to Omura's materials, including the patent, as primary backups.
5. We do provide a reference to the actual patent in the first paragraph of the article. We also provide a reference to Omura's description of how the patent was obtained.
6. We say Gorringe and the NZT used the terms PMRT and BDORT interchangeably, which they did, and that they used only BDORT alone in the second report. We include links to the complete text of NZT reports for the readers to read and evaluate on their own. And lastly, we include a dedicated sub-section just to address the PMRT/BDORT terminology.
7. The best way to be neutral is to review the acceptable sources and present them neutrally. We only have the two NZT reports (and the Quackwatch review of NZT) as acceptable secondary sources, so neutrality becomes easy - we can just focus on the NZT. We also include references to Omura's work and the patent as a primary backup to the NZT reports, but we are not allowed to interpret Omura's work or the patent on our own, as that would violate WP:NOR.

Bottom line: We have reliable secondary sources to evaluate BDORT - the NZT reports (and Quackwatch evaluating the NZT reports) - and we do our best to summarize them in a neutral fashion. We also include references to Omura's materials and the patent, as primary backup to the NZT reports. This is exactly what Wikipedia requires us to do - anything else would violate our WP:V, W:NOR and WP:NPOV policies. Crum375 17:42, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

I think there is big mistakes. To your numbers also:

1. It not true that Tribunal equate. They say that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura. This is the opposite, it make clear distingsion. But also says We refer to this procedure,later and throughout this judgment as PMRT. It is also referred to as Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT). So this make confusion. Also they call it 'muscle testing' method. But most clear statement is that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura. This is 100% clear from everything. Now it is possible that interpretation is made in two ways, this is problem, for the article. It is not possible to give any interpretation becuase wikipedia must be neutral - only informative as encyclopedia. Therefore, it is impossible to use this source in neutral way. Certainly the exampke of 'PMRT vs BDORT' is all 'original research' there for.

2. Not equating. that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura is not equating! The PMRT vs BDORT is 'original resaerch', it make interpretation one way and not other way also possible just as well. It cannt be neutral.

3. This article about BDORT. But Tribunal is not. Does not matter they say the word 'BDORT', because it say really they not judge this Dr Omura his technique, because they say it is not what Gorringe technique was.

4. Current description is therefore biased to 'make a point' from unneutral interpretation of Tribunal. We can also write like this ‘’It is unclear from the tribunal's report if Gorringe he used the technique of BDORT because tribunal state that his technique is not this Dr Omura his technique’’. This also based on same source. You see? one way or other way both possible from same information. We say in journalism that article made from words inbetween facts! It is not right that because source is good one, interpretation must be neutral. Never like this. Also not task of enclylpodea to make evaluation, just be informative. This is mistake that you write.

5. description of this techniqye is so wrong.

6. Tribunal say that they refer to this technique in many names. But this not change that tribunal made distingsion, they say this.

7. SO means that cuurent article is much interpretation. We must make full edits.

I am interested about wikipedia for this reason, so I choose strange articles to edit for me to see what is the outcome about neutral writing or not. This is why I involved myself. Here is good example about this. Otherwise we must say this is 'disputed neutrality' like some other ones as well. So come one, we make edits now? Thank you.1garden 13:49, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Paragraph 290 in NZT-1

Here is what the paragraph says:

290. Dr Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and

attributed the origin of it to a Dr Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to

any real extent.[2]

We have already discussed this paragraph at length in the past. Our conclusion is that the words "relating to PMRT (or BDORT)" mean that the NZT consider PMRT and BDORT to be effectively the same. What they are also saying is that the technique that Gorringe used is different from the one Omura used, so the Omura materials were not useful. The only way to understand this is that the NZT is saying that they consider PMRT and BDORT to be practically the same from the scientific point of view, therefore their experts do not distinguish between them, but the specific technique is different, clearly not enough to make any difference in the evaluation. I don't see any other logical way to interpret this paragraph, especially in the context of the entire NZT-1 report, and we have been through this discussion before and explain it in a separate section in the article. It seems to me that we need to get past this paragraph to move forward, because the other items in 1garden's list hinge on this point. And again, in the second case of NZT-2,[3] PMRT is not mentioned at all, only BDORT is used, so the PMRT/BDORT issue is non-existent there. Crum375 15:35, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Some of discussion I read was not agreement about this. But if I read myself, which the most my attention, I don not find this interpretation that you say, I explain many times above about this. It is contradiction, cannot be the same and also different. SO must be explanation for this. OK. ALso, next thing you give correct statement of problem, because you say it, we have to interprete. This is main point! But this not for wikipedia. So I think it is not possibkle use of this source, it makes confusion and has many possible interpretation. I repeat it, Gorringe say he use "bdort", he think this?, but we dont know if is lie or not, Tribunal copy like parrot what he say, but when Tribunal looks at omura technique to check evidence, he sees it not the same. Like journalists, no? But this article is for omura technique, no?. Possible to change article headline about 'Muscle Testing'? - then can use this much better But all other ways must be personal interpretation - this is 'oriignal research'. We repeat many times this now. Also second report the same thing, just copy Gorrigne his words. But this not enough - must know what is actual subject, cannot have mistake in an article clearly. I think we must edit it now, thank you. This is very difficult for collaborative write! Again also, Tribunal say this is not omura technique, omura says this also in statement - he is inventor of patent, main expert of this technique of course is!and also i compare patent descripnion from that of this DR gorringe in report - and is alltoegther different. SO this is logic you look for to make explanation. Now it is clear what is confusion. But is contradicting, because not possibel to make 'origianl research', so cannot use this source. It is not possible for it for neutral article. This why so much long time in this article I found out, this is basic problem for disagreements, and I try to finish problem. Everyone can find different interpretaion, so cannot use this source. I change opinion from last version I write, it is only confused information.1garden 09:55, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

1garden, if I understand you correctly, you are saying that you find this source confusing, and therefore we are not allowed to use it. Can you name the specific Wikipedia policy on which you base this conclusion, and show us the applicable wording there? Crum375 23:47, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

It is important to bear in mind, 1garden, that two previous discussions as to notability have concluded, in essence, that BDORT is noteworthy by Wikipedia criteria solely on the basis of the findings of the New Zealand tribunals, which consulted expert opinion as determined by an official board as duly constituted by the government of New Zealand, and that the findings as they pertain to BDORT as made en passant in consideration of the case of Richard Gorringe were that BDORT is a particular example of the form of alternative medicine evaluation most commonly referred to as Applied Kinesiology, and that both Applied Kinesiology in general and BDORT in particular were found, in the final conclusions of the New Zealand tribunals to be without scientific or medical claim to credibility and were and are, therefore, not a fit basis for diagnosis. It is on this basis that the present entry rests. The fact that the particular form of testing Richard Gorringe employed was not identical to BDORT as defined by its originator, Yoshiaki Omura, while duly noted by the New Zealand tribunal, in no way bears on its more general finding that BDORT in particular and Applied Kinesiology in general are without any meaningful claim to empirical validity. Perhaps if Yoshiaki Omura had seized the opportunity to present his methods for evaluation, as Richard Malter has repeatedly noted he failed to do, we might have an even clearer statement. Extant consensus with respect to this entry, however, to date has been that the findings of the New Zealand tribunals do indeed clearly state what is, in fact, stated in the entry in its present form. If you have new information, it would doubtless be welcome. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by TealCyfre0 04:59, 11 May 2007 (UTC)

A Note-Worthy Event

Simply wanted to note the patent link information so helpfully provided by GDallimore and the further refinement of the presentation of that information as well as the incorporation of an illustration from the patent materials then, in turn, so helpfully added to the entry by Crum375. – Very nice, clear, useful, helpful information. – For my part, my thanks. TealCyfre0 00:57, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Sorry for long wait! To crum375, no, I mean this was useless to use. Not saying forbidden. Only can say with this, like bdort name was note in Tribunal of this DR Gorrine but not clear if was about this technique because stated one time it was different technique but other times it was used as same as other muscle test techinques name. Like a write many times, more is only 'pov' possible. So is not reason to use it much anyway, but this OK if you want. Main thing is no 'original reserch'. So OK? 1garden 06:50, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

The New Zealand tribunals were, in fact, quite clear, and the entry in its present form clearly presents those facts. The 'distinction' you attempt to draw is effectively nonexistant, and has been persistently raised by advocates speaking on Omura's part in an attempt to defend his 'reputation.' It is an in-valid 'distinction.' The New Zealand tribunals very clearly address claims as to BDORT's scientific and medical status, and offer expert testimony that they, in turn, are non-existant, and so find in the course of their final conclusions of fact. The entry simply reflects those facts. TealCyfre0 18:05, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

This what you say is opinion. I try many times now to explain, give many details. I offer many edits. If not agreement on edits then must be that this is a disputed article. I try to help main problem, but is there no progress, but impossible that this article saiys is neutrali. But we should more discuss, but also want to edit more articles.

1garden 13:14, 22 May 2007 (UTC)

This article should be called PMRT

I was attracted to this article because I have been going around Wikipedia adding patent templates. Always loving a controversy, I stayed to have a look.

Having now read through all the history about this article and read through the BDORT patent and the PMRT medical tribunal case, I think I have come to agree with those people who are proponents of BDORT - PMRT is not the same as BDORT and it is wrong to use evidence of malpractice over PMRT as evidence that BDORT is ineffectual. I base this on the tribunal finding itself, this being our only reliable source: Pargraph 290

Dr Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to a Dr Yoshiaki Omura and produced some written material relating to the Omura technique (exhibits 31 and 42). However, it would appear from a perusal of those materials that the technique which Dr Gorringe practises is different from that practised by Dr Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.

The only people to claim that PMRT was the same as BDORT were the people defending the doctor using PMRT. Their testimony can hardly be deemed reliable in light of the final judgment of the tribunal.

However, unlike proponents of BDORT, I am not suggesting that the stuff about the tribunal be removed. Instead, the only solution appears to be to rename this article PMRT and remove most of the information about BDORT, except enough to explain the claimed similarity between the two processes since there is some confusion over this. The BDORT article itself cannot survive without PMRT as there are no reliable sources about it (as also highlighted in the tribunal in para 306). If there is ever a reliable source that discusses BDORT, then a separate BDORT article can be started. Until such time, I think a redirect of BDORT to PMRT would be appropriate.

Oh, and before anyone asks, a patent is not a reliable source of information about BDORT and the fact that the patent was granted is not a justification of the process - the patent office does not grant patents on the basis of efficacy, although they can refuse them if there appears to be no prospect of efficacy.

If there is no consensus about moving this page from the regular editors, I will vote it for deletion to open it up to a wider audience for consideration. GDallimore (Talk) 07:40, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Although I have added a merge tag, if the consensus is to merge, we should actually simple move the entire page. We might also consider using the article title "Peak Muscle Resistance Testing" and have redirects from PMRT to that article. GDallimore (Talk) 07:50, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

PMRT is already redirected to BDORT. Most of the references we have are to BDORT, Dr. Omura calls his invention BDORT, the USPTO calls it BDORT, the training courses call it BDORT, and most of the NZT-1 experts are referring to BDORT, not PMRT. NZT-2, in which a patient was ruled to have died due to exclusive reliance on BDORT in lieu of conventional diagnostic techniques, calls the procedure exclusively BDORT, and PMRT is not even mentioned there. The person who appears to have originated the term PMRT for BDORT is Gorringe in NZT-1 (as reported by the tribunal in NZT-1), and even Gorringe stops calling it PMRT in NZT-2. So I see no justification at this point to change the primary name to PMRT. I do believe that the redirect from PMRT to here should remain. Crum375 18:47, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Crum375 on this issue. Consider, too, that this entry has already twice survived nomination for deletion, and this, too, effectively supports the present form. TealCyfre0 19:24, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

Just because I call my car a porsche, doesn't mean it's a porsche. The only reliable source we have which compares Gorringe's technique with Omara's says that they are not the same. Other sources call Gorringe's technique BDORT, but do not provide any evidence that it is BDORT as taught by Omara. HEre are a couple more relevant quotes from the first tribunal:

100. At each consultation Dr Gorringe “muscle tested” Mrs Short by a procedure called “Peak Muscle Resistance Testing” which he used as a diagnostic tool. We refer to this procedure later and throughout this judgment as PMRT. It is also referred to as Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT).

ergo, the tribunal referred to the test as PMRT even if others chose to call it BDORT.

42. She submitted that while Dr Gorringe claimed that PMRT was recognised internationally, it was clear that there were a variety of methods, differing in administration and application, and that there was evidence of only one other practitioner practising PMRT as Dr Gorringe did, namely Dr Gibb; but that even then, Dr Gibb disputed that his technique could be applied in the manner in which Dr Gorringe uses it.

ergo, techniques with the same name all appear to be quite different from one another.

The tribunal also does not refert to BDORT at all until people start giving evidence about it. In the list of charges, only PMRT is referred to.

My take on reading the evidence is that Gorringe said his technique originated from (note even he only said originated from) Omara because he wanted to try to add credence to his technique in the face of a tribunal. Of course that's just my view and I can't provide a source for it. However, the view expressed in this article that Gorridge's PMRT and Omara's BDORT are the same is similarly unsourced and must be removed. GDallimore (Talk) 09:35, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You say: "the view expressed in this article that Gorridge's PMRT and Omara's BDORT are the same is similarly unsourced", but the Quackwatch article reviewing these two MPDT cases states:

The test Gorringe used is called peak muscle resistance testing (PMRT) -- also referred to as bi digital O ring testing (BDORT) -- in which the practitioner observes whether the subject's opposed thumb and fourth fingers can be pulled apart...

equating PMRT and BDORT.

The vast majority of our sources mention BDORT, and NZT-2 specifically, where the patient died, which you are not addressing, only mentions BDORT. PMRT is only a name Gorringe gave this procedure - everyone else calls it BDORT. So I think a PMRT redirect to BDORT is sufficient. Crum375 13:11, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

You're not listening and clearly don't know the difference between primary and secondary sources. I'm going to vote this article for deletion. GDallimore (Talk) 13:16, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree with this idea from GDallimore - it is sense to do this1garden 13:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Quite right, 1garden. As this entry has now twice survived nomination for deletion and the ensuing lengthy discussion, I think the sensible thing is that every time someone comes across the entry and doesn't care for it they ought nominate it for deletion so that everyone will have the opportunity of once again revisiting old arguments. WP at its best. Rock on. TealCyfre0 13:49, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Awestruck though I find myself at the sheer force of your introduction to elementary logic, GDallimore I regret that I find your argument both disingenuous and less than compelling. The fact that the NZTs presented expert testimony which characterized PMRT as a subset of BDORT while duly noting distinction between PMRT and BDORT, and BDORT/PMRT in turn as a subset of AK, and so refer consistently to the matter, while it seems not to have been a set of facts of interest to you, is, in fact, the characterization of the New Zealand tribunals. Similarly, as per the observation of Crum375 above, the fact that the New Zealand tribunals themselves refer to BDORT in the fashion which Crum375 presents seems not to hae piqued your interest, as you seem to prefer to substitute your own logic for that of the New Zealand tribunals. If you think it appropriate to yet again seek deletion for this entry in order to seek a wider range of opinions, I suggest you do so. TealCyfre0 13:33, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute

I believe this article contains WP:OR. Having now read up on Wikipedia:Resolving disputes I will make some bold edits to remove what I view to be OR and, should these edits be reverted we can then discuss specific edits rather than the generalities of the dispute as on the recent AfD. If this discussion fails to reach agreement, then perhaps a Wikipedia:Requests for comment would be appropriate. GDallimore (Talk) 09:53, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• I think it would be better by far, if you're unable to establish consensus for your viewpoint in Talk to seek Wikipedia:Requests for comment. If you simply 'boldly edit' without establishing consensus, you will simply initiate an edit war, which will be pointless. TealCyfre0 13:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

• • I will not engage in an edit war. I will make WP:BOLD edits and if other editors disagree they can revert per WP:BRD. At least then everyone knows exactly what edits I'm talking about and can reassure themselves that I am not trying to push a pro-BDORT position, just avoiding what I see to be an unfairly anti-BDORT position. I'd be grateful if the tags that myself and 1garden added stay until such time as I've had a chance to make my edits.GDallimore (Talk) 13:54, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
• Sorry, but I disagree. I've removed the excessive tag-age you've placed there. POV is more than sufficient to direct anyone to Talk, where they can judge for themselves. Please make your case and attempt to establish consensus rather than simply insist, in the absence of consensus, that you are the holder of Truth with respect to the entry. TealCyfre0 13:56, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Just saw your switch of Signage. Fine, I have no problem whatsoever with that. I disagree, but for the moment it seems perfectly reasonable from your perspective. TealCyfre0 13:59, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding templates

This article has undergone extensive scrutiny and vetting by editors and admins, and was even part of an extensive ArbCom case. Inserting blanket templates is not constructive. If you have an issue, let's discuss it here first. Crum375 14:07, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I've removed the AfD template as the nom was withdrawn. Anyone have a problem with that? TealCyfre0 14:09, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

All previous scrutiny relating to this article has been over notability. I've seen nothing extensive about content. If there has been something on this point, please point me towards it as I have asked several times already. GDallimore (Talk) 14:49, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I don't follow. You'd indicated you'd read the article's preposterously extensive history. There has been infinite discussion as to content and sourcing. TealCyfre0 15:00, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

The only arguments I've seen to support equating Gorringe's BDORT with Omura's BDORT are that they are both called BDORT and that Gorringe said his technique originates from Omura's. Is there another argument? Is there another source that compares the technique practiced by Omura with the technique practiced by Gorringe? GDallimore (Talk) 15:06, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore, perhaps you are not aware that this includes much of the history and numerous mediation sessions of this article, when it was under that title. Be sure to read the eight (8) archive pages. Also, you may want to read the ArbCom case related to this entry (also under its previous name). Crum375 15:12, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

To clarify, the previous version was focused on the inventor, whereas this version is focused on the techique, but much of the content is the same, since the technique played a major role in both versions. Crum375 15:14, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

I does not accept this that the 'tag' changes by the other people can be decided! I object to hierarchy of this - I formed argument now for many weeks. Also I gave improvement suggestion to make major edits. GDallimore now make argument that is the same. This article 'make a point' and has much 'or'. If it gives conflict to say this OKAY, but not to silence the other person!! 1garden 09:40, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Adding templates does not improve the article one bit; in fact it tends to deface it. If you have specific issues that you feel need to be addressed, let's do that here. I strongly suggest that you pick one specific issue at a time, then we can review its history on the talk pages, look at the sources, and see if any changes are needed. Crum375 12:43, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've already said that I do not intend to edit war and I'm sticking by that. However, Crum, there are three editors indicating that such "defacement" of the article is appropriate at the present time. Please don't revert against such a consensus should another editor choose to revert your edits. GDallimore (Talk) 12:47, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

There is no consensus for any of the templates. Adding a template, especially for an entry that underwent extensive scrutiny by many people for a long time, does deface the article. If there is any specific issue, let's address it here first. Crum375 12:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore's edits to the lead

GDallimore, I have reverted your edits for several reasons. First, BDORT is not an imaging procedure, it does not produce any images. Second, there is independent scientific evaluation of BDORT, NZT1 and NZT2, and they were the main reason this article survived its first 2 AfDs. Also, the NZT, which had access to all the published BDORT materials, specifically referred to BDORT in many places in NZT1, and exclusively so in NZT2, so it is incorrect to say that they did not. I strongly urge you to discuss your changes here first prior to making edits, as this article has undergone extensive scrutiny. Thanks, Crum375 13:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have discussed them here and I have reviewed this "extensive scrutiny". What I cannot find anywhere is anything said on this talk page, in the previous discussions or reports or in the NZT's that says that when they say BDORT they mean Omura's BDORT rather than Gorringe's BDORT. Perhaps you can enlighten me or are you going to maintain your silence on this point? GDallimore (Talk) 13:52, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

PS, note that everything I said in my version of the lead, including "imaged" was fully referenced. GDallimore (Talk) 13:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Please address one point at a time, or we'll never get anywhere. If you have an issue like what the NZT mean by the word 'BDORT', let's nail it down here first - edit warring over it will not help at all. If need be, we can do more mediation, although we have been through 6 of them or so over the past year, just to get to this version, plus we've been through Arbitration. As far as 'everything being sourced', there are lots of shaky sources out there - part of the editing job here is to decide which ones are acceptable and how to present them, per WP:V, WP:NOR and WP:NPOV. Crum375 14:01, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I have asked only one question. Are you going to answer it or is it now time to take this to an RfC? GDallimore (Talk) 14:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If the question is about NZT and BDORT, I have answered it many times. Again, NZT2 only talks about BDORT, so it's a non-issue. In the case of NZT1, they are experts, they had access to all the BDORT publications, and they refer to BDORT many times. That is a perfectly acceptable source on BDORT per our WP:V policy. That Gorringe also calls his procedure 'PMRT' is a secondary issue, and the NZT specifically equates PMRT and BDORT, in many places. Again, the NZT are the experts, and when they make statements about BDORT we cite them, when they equate BDORT and PMRT we cite them, etc. This is our job here as editors - to cite reliable sources, and the NZT and their endorsed experts are very reliable. Crum375 14:20, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

that is not answering the question. Where in NZT2 does it say that Gorringe's BDORT is the same as Omura's BDORT? I have said nothing about notability or anything else. This is a very simple question that I have been asking for some time. GDallimore (Talk) 14:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

The NZT does not call it "Gorringe's BDORT" anywhere. That is your own personal interpretation. The NZT calls it BDORT, BDORT is widely published, and this is what they say they evaluated. To claim that the eminent medical experts don't really mean 'BDORT' when what they say is 'BODRT', can only be done if you have a reliable source saying so, or else you violate WP:NOR. Crum375 14:35, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. At least now I understand where you're coming from. Sounds unrealistic to me - surely the tribunal will just call a technique by the name given to it during the tribunal, not go off and researching other techniques in order find something similar and name a technique that way. It's a particular strange argument in light of para 290 of NZT1. However, you've clearly made your mind up, so I'll get round to an RfC sometime... GDallimore (Talk) 14:45, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me quite simple, and not a matter of interpretation, that in the preliminary phase, prior to considering expert testimony, NZT1 first briefly raises the question of Gorringe's having referred to his diagnostic, which he terms PMRT and BDORT, as BDORT, with respect to the question of the applicability of descriptions of Omura's BDORT presented as evidence by Gorringe. The Tribunal then proceeds to note, in Para 290, that Gorringe's diagnostic, which Gorringe terms both PMRT and BDORT, does not appear to be the same as the materials presented by Gorringe which describe Yoshiaki Omura's BDORT, and that these materials are therefore not helpful. Expert testimony then proceeds, in full awareness of these observations, to present statements which with absolute consistency refer to PMRT as Gorringe's term for a form of BDORT and to BDORT as a form of Applied Kinesiology. The testimony consistently, as quoted and referenced in the entry, then characterizes Applied Kinesiology as having no claim to scientific basis and therefore as unacceptable for diagnostic purposes, and from this general observation makes numerous specific references, first to BDORT, and secondarily to Gorringe's particular application of BDORT, for which Gorringe's term was PMRT, as having no claim to scientific basis, and as never having been subject to scientific evaluation. This is the actual form of the expert testimony presented, and it was the ruling of the Tribunal to accept that expert testimony, and rule on that basis. As the Tribunal would appear never to have felt for even a moment the need to particularize the PMRT variation but instead chose to treat the matter as a form of BDORT, and BDORT as a form of AK, to claim that the Tribunal ruled as to the validity of PMRT per se as opposed to BDORT/AK is to invert the actual findings of the Tribunal. TealCyfre0 17:41, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

That's simple is it? It leads to the question about your choice of words "form or BDORT". Where does that come from? Where is there a suggestion that PMRT is a form of BDORT? Those words, nor anything like them, are not in the NZT. Unless you have access to the full witness statements and aren't telling us, there is nothing in the NZT that explains why sometimes people refer to BDORT and at other times they refer to PMRT. In the absence of this information, it is not correct to assume that when they say BDORT they mean Omura's BDORT and when they say PMRT they mean Gorringe's BDORT. It could just be that BDORT is easier to vocalise than PMRT which is why it became the name of choice. GDallimore (Talk) 18:11, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

If you want to insist on your interpretation, saying that the NZTs aren't referring to BDORT or AK when they consistently do so, as your statement itself acknowledges, that's your privilege. Personally, I'd be more than happy to take the matter to any editor of even minimal competence. As, however, none such is available, I'm simply stating my understanding of what seems to me plain, simple presentation of the facts for the consideration of others who may consider the entry. The fact of the matter is that, as you note yourself, the NZTs in fact refer to BDORT and AK. The fact that you aren't satisfied that they chose to address the matter in your preferred form, drawing the distinctions you feel they ought to have drawn in a fashion so as to satisfy you, doesn't negate that plain, simple fact, and the fact that you have to speculate as to why they might not have 'It could just be that BDORT is easier to vocalize than PMRT' is a speculation on your part that assumes laziness or indifference as to simple intellectual distinction on the part of experts offering testimony and the official rulings of duly appointed Tribunals of the Government of New Zealand as well. Quite an assumption. TealCyfre0 18:23, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore, as Wikipedia editors we are not allowed to speculate, as least not in article space, as that would violate WP:NOR. We are only allowed to summarize what our reliable sources say, and we are not allowed to speculate on the validity of what they say. So in this case, when the NZT experts say 'BDORT', we say 'BDORT'. If we had some reliable source saying that the NZT experts did not really mean to say BDORT even though they did, or didn't understand what they were doing or saying, then we could cite that too, but at this point, we don't have such a source, so we rely on the reliable sources we do have. Crum375 18:28, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Are you really not reading what I'm saying? I'm saying that when the tribunal say BDORT, they do mean BDORT, but they mean Gorringe's BDORT which they explicitly say is different from Omura's BDORT. How is this so hard to grasp? Just because two things are called BDORT does not necessarily mean they are the same, especially in light of this clear and incontrovertible statement that they are actually different despite Gorringe insisting on calling his technique BDORT. The speculation about who was talking about what comes from your side of the argument, by saying that the witnesses were talking about Omura's BDORT when we have no evidence that they were. They could just as easily have been talking about Gorringe's BDORT. It is absolutely impossible to tell one way or the other. I gave some speculation as an example of how the opposite side to your position could be true. Since both sides are potentially true, neither can be stated as fact in the absence of further evidence. So we have to rely on the single clear statement that says that the two are different.

I have not even considered whether Omura's BDORT is a form of AK, but I don't really care about that particular. Even if it is, it doesn't mean it's the same as Gorringe's BDORT, just that they are both subsets of the same broad area. But it is inappropriate from that similarity to include, in the introduction of all places, a statement that someone using BDORT (implying Omura's BDORT) caused the death of a patient. That is based on OR and is also an attack on Omura and his technique so you have to be pretty damn sure you've got that one right. The "evidence" doesn't even come close to my eyes. GDallimore (Talk) 23:53, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore, I ask you again: do you see any mention in the NZT of "Gorringe's BDORT"? If so, please point me to it. All I see is "BDORT" alone, sometimes being equated to PMRT by adding PMRT in parentheses. If you can't find the term "Gorringe's BDORT" anywhere, then we cannot use it. Since we do find the term BDORT in many places, we can use it. For example:

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 Cannell, NZT expert witness testimony, par. 306

Prof. Cannell is clearly aware of the published literature – he is an expert, and there are lots of BDORT publications. He says "BDORT", so we say "BDORT" – that's what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about – we rely on reliable sources and report what they say. Crum375 00:18, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Crum375 is quite right, here. Your repeated frenzied insistence on interpreting the NZTs' real meaning as it seems screamingly obvious [to you], while shouting that others who aren't inclined to interpret the NZTs' statements in a fashion other than their actual form, as quoted, cited, and referenced in the present entry, which includes a separate section addressing potential questions as to clarity of terminology in this respect, aren't listening [to you] is simply an argument of the form that your interpretation of the obvious [to you] meaning of the NZTs is to be substituted for their actual statements, and that use of their actual statements is original research. The plain, simple fact, is that the NZTs' statements are of the form appropriately quoted, cited, and referenced in the entry. Your repeated excited insistence that it is very obvious and clear [to you] that they really mean not what they say when quoted and throughout the actual transcripts, but really mean what you feel is obvious to you is what is known in the Psychology of Perception as the 'Duh Moment.' TealCyfre0 00:48, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Both of you are failing the recognise the assumption inherent in your reasoning. This assumption, as I have stated, is that because two things are called BDORT they must be the same. This assumption is shown to be false by para 290 of NZT1. GDallimore (Talk) 09:21, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

The NZT clearly tell us that they equate PMRT and BDORT, see for example:

At each consultation Dr Gorringe “muscle tested” Mrs Short by a procedure called “Peak Muscle Resistance Testing” which he used as a diagnostic tool. We refer to this procedure later and throughout this judgment as PMRT. It is also referred to as Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT).

— NZT1, par. 100

Paragraph 290 also tells us that PMRT and BDORT are equivalent, as it says "relating to PMRT (or BDORT)". The NZT are a reliable source and rely on experts – if they tell us that the terms PMRT and BDORT are equivalent, we must accept it, per WP:V and WP:NOR. Crum375 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This says nothing more than that the terms BDORT and PMRT are being used to mean the same thing. It is not saying that PMRT or BDORT as practised by Gorringe is the same as BDORT practised by Omura. In fact, in light of para 290, it appears that the opposite is true. BDORT or PMRT as referred to by the tribunal mean BDORT or PMRT as practised by Gorringe and does not mean BDORT as practised by Omura.

Maybe a straightforward example will help. A digital camera is very different from a film camera, but they are both given the name "camera". Similarly, just because Omura's BDORT and Gorringe's BDORT have been given the same name "BDORT" does not necessarily mean that they are the same. I agree that there would be an extremely good case to make the assumption that there were (and I would not be debating this point), if it were not for para 290 where they are expicitly said to be different. GDallimore (Talk) 12:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore, you seem to ignore my message from above, which I will repeat here for your convenience - this is a statement by Professor Cannell in NZT1:

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 Cannell, NZT expert witness testimony, par. 306

Prof. Cannell is clearly aware of the published literature – he is an expert, and there are lots of BDORT publications. He says "BDORT", so we say "BDORT" – that's what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about – we rely on reliable sources and report what they say. We cannot invent new interpretations and meanings, as that would violate WP:NOR. Crum375 12:31, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

GDallimore: You state that NZT1 states that PMRT and BDORT are 'equivalent.' You then state that 'This says nothing more than that the terms BDORT and PMRT are being used to mean the same thing.' You are asserting, then, that a statement asserting equivalence is itself equivalent if not identical to a statement as to singular semantic referent. Uh ... wrong.

The key issue is that you are insistent that since, in your interpretation it is possible that the NZTs did not intend to say what they appear to say when actually quoted in the entry, it is logically required that, as this is a possibility, it must be assumed to be true. Uh ... wrong.

Here's a thought – what about quoting the NZTs' expert testimony and findings in the entry, with references, rather than interpret in the name of avoiding interpretation? Oh, but wait, the entry already does that. ;) TealCyfre0 14:15, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

I am agreeing with GDallimore I say many times now. Also deletion of 'problem' tags on article is hierarchy. Three people say yes to this. 1garden 10:36, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

1garden, tags cannot be arbitrarily inserted, since they deface the article. If you have a specific problem, let's address it here. Crum375 11:28, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

English-Centrist Wiki for English Speakers only

I sincerely mean no offense by this, 1Garden, but your command of English is obviously limited in the extreme. If you have a point to make, you must make it, clearly, however imperfect your English. The mere assertion that a person of demonstrably extremely limited command of English disagrees with the interpretation of others in and of itself lends very little to the discussion other than the fact that your disagreement is noted. If you have argument to offer, offer it. TealCyfre0 14:19, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

This is 1garden writing. I have help with the English. This is not arbirtray as suggested - many times I have stated exact arguments, now GDallimore has stated the same specific problems with this article. Much detail is given by me and GDallimore - almost the same. This article, has much POV. We have given details, both saying the same thing. You other editors I do not understand why because it is very clear, but do not agree. But you do not have monoploy on this article. We have right to say that content is disputed. So tagging is proper. Also three editors agreed to tagging, only one did not - one editor cannot create hierarchy and say he decides. In conclusion: there is a dispute about content that has been detailed - much detail! - so it is correct to mark this until resolution. Not reverse - first there must be tagging then discussion, otherwise it is like a 'chief editor' dictating monoploy on article content. This is not acceptable. I hope this is clear now. 1garden 11:00, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

1g: You are possessed of absolutely no competence at the English language. Your 'help' is demonstrably inadequate, and your judgements as to the entry are both in error and inappropriate. If you have convincing arguments to make, make them. I have considered the matter and am in consonance with Crum's arguments as to the question of tags, ie, that they are inappropriate. Your statement that the entry is POV given the fact that it simply and clearly presents information sourced to the only authoritative body or instrumentality as-yet identified, clearly quoting that body, duly noting its usage of the terms PMRT, BDORT, and AK, betrays either an utter lack of comprehension on your part or a desire to remove reference on the part of an authoritative duly constituted government body as to the lack of scientific or medical merit of PMRT, BDORT, and AK, for which that duly constituted authoritative government body's preferred term was BDORT. If you have a quarrel with their terminology I suggest you contact them rather than quarrel with the entry which simply presents their findings, appropriately quoted and referenced. TealCyfre0 19:55, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

I wish I could say I understand Japanese [as it's rather obvious 1garden is another of Y.Omura's native-son defenders] but I have to agree with statements above concerning 1garden's obscure attempts at English language writing. In fact any dialog with 1g here requires such a level of interpretation of these often inpenetrable writings that when applied to these entirely semantic contentions they range toward the meaningless as argument. I must wonder if 1g could not be a construction designed to be useful in protracting these arguments, as well as dissuading other legitimate editors from any involvement in this lugubrious review. Wiki does attract all sorts... including conspiracy theorists and even their little green provocateurs.

Essentially, this is the English Language Wiki.

1g's contributions, while designed with roman characters and applying English-similar rhythms and word groupings, are frequently and demonstrably not English and are not our problem. The editors who have countenanced these efforts of 1g have done so simply far above and beyond the call of their English-only duties in the interest of developing their experience of process.

Case in point: 1g's objection to the word "subjective" in the article's initial sentence. I find the use of the word "subjective" here is objective - and fully appropriate.

Also please note, more precise substitutions and useful, concrete suggestions lack in 1g's rambling argumentativeness. I won't suggest an alternative word here either; there is none i can suggest, none that I feel remotely appropriate - and yet omitting this word obviously makes the sentence less precise. 1g is out of his depth. I continue to maintain the long confused posts of 1g are inappropriate; 1g should be referred to Editors in his native language, rather than troubling ours. I still question his self-proclaimed disinterest. I'm reminded of parties desiring a flattering and prestigious English Wiki article.

Perhaps I am a tool to respond but: 1g, you do best with simple ideas and the most extremely shortest sentences. Discussing attitudes, or the subtle word choices of native english writers is so beyond your present ability you become a problem all your own. Discussing English grammar with you is lugubrious. Please be responsible: Understand and respect your own limits - and ours. As it is, we all understand 'something different' just from your rambling posts! Perhaps you would better consider working on the article in Japanese Wiki- or if somehow that is 'not possible' [i read this same controversy is more intransigent in Japan], then perhaps providing us your approved translation of that BDORT article, and allow us to compare it to other translations. That could be revealing at least. What say you?

Hilarleo 10:40, 3 July 2007 (UTC)

May I ask what you're referring to with [i read this same controversy is more intransigent in Japan] ? – this is news to me, and, given the insane process with respect the entry's prolonged 'defense' by Omura and his proponents, particularly Richard Malter, here, I'm frankly curious. TealCyfre0 03:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

1garden, you cannot just add templates to the article, as they tend to deface it. If there are substantive issues, they need to be addressed – they are not fixed by putting up ugly signs. At this point, I am not aware of any open issue. If you have any, please start with a single one, and let's focus on it and try to resolve it. Thanks, Crum375 19:58, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment2

There is disagreement over whether a New Zealand medical tribunal is discussing the same procedure as practiced by a Dr Omura and described in a granted patent. 21:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

• The disagreement is not, however, evident in the sources, so is irrelevant as far as Wikipedia is concerned. Guy (Help!) 14:46, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
  • What? The cited sources say that Gorringe's technique is not the same as Omura's technique. How is that not disgreement? GDallimore (Talk) 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The cited sources say Gorringe used BDORT. Guy (Help!) 16:03, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• The cited sources say that this is not the same as the patented technique. GDallimore (Talk) 16:06, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• GDallimore, this has been regurgitated to death, the latest can be found here. The NZT is clearly discussing BDORT; NZT2 only mentions BDORT, nothing else, and NZT1 includes numerous statements focused strictly on BDORT, not even mentioning Gorringe. For example, see my comments on this issue here (e.g. see Professor Cannell's statement, NZT expert witness testimony, par. 306). Crum375 16:08, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• NZT2 does not mention Omura at all, though so there is nothing to show that Omura and Gorringe are doing the same thing and a very explicit statement that they are not as I have now shown in the intro to the article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:16, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• NZT2 mentions BDORT and this is an article about BDORT. Crum375 16:18, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• According to your recent edit, this is an article about BDORT as practiced by Omura. NZT1 and NZT2 are about BDORT as practice by Gorringe which NZT1 said was different from BDORT as practice by Omura. Therefore anything that NZT1 or 2 says does not belong in this article. GDallimore (Talk) 16:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• This is an article about BDORT. BDORT was invented by Omura. NZT1 and NZT2 talk about BDORT generically, as well as the specifics of the Gorringe cases. They are therefore very pertinent and relevant for this article. Crum375 16:30, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

• NZT1 and NZT2 never say they are talking about BDORT generically. Therefore it is OR to say that they are or that they are relevant to BDORT as practiced by Omura. In fact, they are far more likely to only be discussing BDORT as practiced by Gorringe since that was the case before them to consider so it is also most likely incorrect to use NZT1 and NZT2 in a discussion about Omura's technique. GDallimore (Talk) 16:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) GDallimore, you are forcing me to repeat myself ad nauseam, but for the benefit of any newcomers, here is a partial copy from the above mentioned thread, that you seem to be ignoring:

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 Cannell, NZT expert witness testimony, par. 306

Prof. Cannell is clearly aware of the published literature – he is an expert, and there are lots of BDORT publications. He says "BDORT", so we say "BDORT" – that's what WP:V and WP:NOR are all about – we rely on reliable sources and report what they say. Crum375 16:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

There are reliable sources and there is misapplication of a reliable source. It doesn't make the source any less reliable. Rather it just makes the reliable source irrelevant. BTW, we don't know how aware Cannell is of the published literature regarding AK. We know he referred to 14 references. Anthon01 (talk) 03:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Lead

Crum, good call. The problem for me is calling it a diagnostic procedure; it is not accpeted as such other than by proponents, obviously. See Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Paranormal/Proposed decision#Flat statements of fact; I still think we should reword to make it clearer that this is more contentious than your regular alternative medicine topic. Guy (Help!) 14:42, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps I am more inclined to lump all AM procedures together; if you have a reliable published source stating that this procedure is significantly more controversial than the average, then it would merit a mention. Crum375 15:55, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The fact of it having provably resulted in a death and striking-off is not insignificant, I think. Guy (Help!) 15:58, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

True, but to reach the conclusion that it is therefore more contentious than the average would require a reliable source, or else it would be OR. Crum375 16:14, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

You know what...

I've decided I don't care. Since making an appearance on this article, I've had unsolicited emails and messages from RichardMalter on one side of the debate trying to persuade me that BDORT is great (If you're reading this, Mr M, that's a laugh, by the way) and I've been insulted by those on the other side of the debate who seem equally intent to discredit it, forgetting that discrediting something when you have unsound basis for doing so is a dangerous game to play. I, personally, would be happy with an article that represented BDORT as, at best, an implausible technique with no mainstream support, but which doesn't actively say that using it leads to the death of patients as it practically does at the moment. Consequently, I seem to have ended up stuck in the middle trying to balance this article between two immobile extremes.

I leave this message as a warning to any others who may follow. The strong feelings on this topic mean that it is not one to get involved in unless you want a long, drawn-out debate. I would rather be writing articles on happy and less contentious topics and strongly recommend this to every wikipedian as a way to promote wikilove. If you decide to weigh in, don't say I didn't warn you. GDallimore (Talk) 16:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I hope you do not include me on a list of those who insulted you, or who have an intent to discredit BDORT. My only goal on this entry, since I arrived here a year ago as an informal mediator, is to present the well sourced facts as fairly and as neutrally as possible, according to Wikipedia's policies. I think the entry we have today is pretty close to doing that, but there is always room for improvement. Crum375 17:11, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

I think, GDallimore, that an essential irony of the situation with respect to this entry is that what you suggest here: 'I, personally, would be happy with an article that represented BDORT as, at best, an implausible technique with no mainstream support,' was effectively the initial/early form of the entry. That form of the entry, however, was fiercely attacked by proponents arguing that there was no verifiable reliable source to indicate anything other than that BDORT was the cure for the earth's if not the universe's ills. While I disagree with your interpretation as to the applicability of the NZTs as to BDORT, I think that it's an honest disagreement, but I suspect we might be in agreement that this entry is sufficiently poisonous that it colors even honest disagreements. I certainly know that it's soured my outlook on Wikipedia. As I've said on innumerable occasions with respect to this entry, in any sane structure such a matter would be referred to some meaningful form of editorial judgement which would settle the matter one way or another. Others feel that Wikipedia is quite capable of sorting these matters out through its process. Here, too, there is honest disagreement, I believe. TealCyfre0 17:57, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

To take up the spear here, the spear which GDallimore has already beat into a ploughshare:

I quite follow GDallimore's late point - about different people meaning slightly, significantly different ideas when using the same syllables. I do it myself all the time! So I agree with him, there's a small but perhaps important possibility of confusion. A medical tribunal, unfamiliar with any of the [possibly imaginary] distinctions among these fringe developments, cannot be expected to be immediately entirely synpathetic to all the practitioners' subtle aims. Thus it's possible that the various parties represented in our secondary source do in fact each mean something different when they use the same acronym. Can we ever know? Perhaps. Indeed it is customary to assume all mean the same thing when saying the same thing. It is appropriate to quote the NZT. But, this is not Snopes - So mayhaps Mr.Richard W. Gorringe could be invited to share his personal view on the single matter of these various possible understandings of the utilized term [I have not seen that he has yet], and thus his perspective might be contra-posited to the tribunal's understanding. It's touchy-feely but everyone gets his say and we are not guilty of throttling our next finger-wiggling genius. Am I naive, or could such a statement from Gorringe clarify or satisfy GDallimore's late position? Though I also tend to agree with GDallimore in that 'I don't care'.

Similarly we have 5 variants listed here under "Suggested uses and variants of BDORT". Gorringe's contribution to the new age could likewise be listed, and suggested to be a subsidiary BDORT development - taking care to briefly indicate any obection re:infringement being made here on behalf of the patent-holder. As this citation could provoke further infringement claims against Mr. Gorringe, language would be tightly circumspect. If Gorringe refuses to participate, we retain available sources.

With consensus we are consoled by representing all 'equally poorly'. In this article anything less than flattering seems related to some objection, and at any one of several times. Rather than silencing the critical voice here, basic disagreements can be expressed as objections in adjacent text &/or via links. Anyone who objects to being mentioned in the same breath with a rival can have his part or non-participation noted, the end.

However...

We are not able to represent every objection that is being raised. I wrote further above I consider much of 1Garden's current contributions essentially inappropriate - due to his confused over-reaching misuse of English in the English Language Wiki. A good proprtion of 1g's submissions appear argumentative - but the majority merely argue for his basic misapprehensions of almost all English semantics.

Further, in relation to 1g I get a feeling some parties tend to be most satisfied as a single, particular view becomes predominant.

The current article provides good basic stuff. Some objections seem minor but we can fairly address more of 'em - when such issues are represented by friendly arguments, made in a coherent standard form of English. In lieu of that, we can provide a link to the japanese article and it's translations. Languages are not our purview!

Parties are reminded that consensus never promises complete palatability. Still this 'invention' rates a free mention in English Wiki, so Dr. Yomura can be pleased; Snopes can list it as suspect or whatever; and likewise in the interest of full disclosure, and Editors should ferret out and lay bare commercial or disingenuous political manipulations, letting primaries speak for themselves when possible.

Patent-holder Yomura must control his invention but all his followers must accept they do not and cannot control Human reactions to his 1-ring, invisible circus.

NOW: I shall take my patent for 'slouching in a comfy chair' and charm my followers to go forth, and multipl*i, and praise my name among foreign lounger-slouchers. Happy, Happy Barking Birfday, amerik4 ... Hilarleo 00:21, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Courses

I've added additional new information, with appropriate cite. Any comments or thoughts more than welcome. TealCyfre0 04:15, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

"The Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (BDORT), characterized as a form of applied kinesiology" THis is characterized by one expert as a form of Applied Kinesiology. THe father of Applied kinesiology and the ICAK, and Omura do not recognize BDORT as a form of AK. I would like to remove this characterization. Anthon01 (talk) 19:51, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

We have eminent experts testifying that BDORT is a form of AK, as noted in the article. Wikipedia is based on Reliable Sources, not hearsay or Original Research. If you have high quality reliable sources stating that BODRT is not a form of AK, we could include that. Omura himself would not be considered reliable in this case, except when talking about himself. Thanks, Crum375 (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would say it would probably be more appropriate in the second sentence -- "BDORT is a patented alternative blah blah blah.(ref) It has been called a form of applied k.(ref)" It would seem to me that the most important thing about BDORT -- the first thing a viewer should read -- is what it is, not what people call it. - Revolving Bugbear 21:20, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the first sentence should be what it is. But mentioning the general category it belongs to, per very reliable mainstream sources, is an essential part of "what it is." Crum375 (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

One Source. According to the reference, just one expert source.

There is a basic problem here if this is the standard that is used by Wikipedia to determine whether a citation is valid. A statement of association made by "one" expert about a subject out of his area of expertise validates the inclusion of this "claimed association" in this article? I'd like to know who put this statement in here. Is there a way to find out?

• There is one expert testifying about AK. Professor Mark Bryden Cannell, who at the time of the hearing held the Chair of Physiology at the School of Medicine at the University of Auckland before which he held a personal Chair as Professor of Biophysics in the University of London. Most of his scientific work has centred on the biophysics of muscle contraction." He has published extensively in international journals on excitation contraction coupling and is recognised as a world expert in this area. He was called as an expert.

Does Dr. Cannell qualified to determine whether BDORT is associated with Applied Kiniesiology? Applied Kinesiology is not his expertise. He was not called in to confirm whether AK is part of BDORT. He was called in to give this opinion.

"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...

His comments have to do with whether an electrical field is produced during BDORT or AK test. Well AK has never asserted that an electrical field is produced during a BDORT test or treatment. While BDORT claims that electrical fields are produced, AK has never made that claim. BDORT is not AK, all muscle testing methods are not AK. Some people seem to believe thats the case. Anthon01 (talk) 23:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

(edit conflict) If it were unequivocal from the sources provided that it is AK, then I would agree with you, Crom, regarding the opening sentence completely. But since the sources we have here apparently only permit us to go so far as to say it is "characterized as" such (and admittedly I know very little about medicine), the phrase would seem to represent an assessment -- albeit an expert assessment, from the looks of it -- instead of an uncontroversial fact. In my opinion, it's always best to start the lead with the most straightforward and indisputable definition of the subject in the first sentence. The facts of it being alternative medicine and the brief description of the procedure seem to me to be resolutely more important than the label of AK. - Revolving Bugbear 23:08, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you that we are not, as Wikipedia editors, saying that BDORT is a form of AK, but only that it has been characterized as such. As it happens, the source that identifies it as AK is the most reliable one we have, and in fact the only reliable mainstream source in the article. So we are using this as a way to explain to the reader who only wishes to read an outline, i.e. the first sentence of the lead, where to go to get more information on the general class of AK. If there had been another reliable source of equal caliber contesting this classification, we would have included it also, but I am not aware of any, and we must follow the reliable sources we do have. Crum375 (talk) 04:02, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Yes, we would have included it in the lead ... but not in the first sentence. Contentious claims don't go in the first sentence. There is other information that is much more important than the AK claim, so there is no reason to have the AK claim first and foremost. It's POV by undue weight. - Revolving Bugbear 10:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

What is the point in including this characterization. How does the mention of AK in the first sentence help the reader? Why use the characterization of an expert on the "biophysics of muscle contraction" to WP:V a claim the is outside his expertise? Anthon01 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Malpractice

The mention of the malpractice especially in the opening of a BDORT article is unnecessary. The effect is to conflate BDORT with malpractice. Why do that? In the interest of improving the article we need to eliminate the unnecessary reference. The following captures the BDORT related information from the tribunal.

In the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled in a malpractice case, BDORT (which was also called 'PMRT') "is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions" and "there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity."

--Anthon01 20:11, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

The current text for comparison.

In the only known independent evaluation of the BDORT or of any other BDORT-related treatment and technique by a mainstream scientific or medical body, the Medical Practitioners Disciplinary Tribunal of New Zealand ruled, in two separate cases brought before it in 2003, that Dr. Richard Warwick Gorringe, MB, ChB of Hamilton, New Zealand, who used BDORT (which he also called 'PMRT') to the exclusion of conventional diagnoses on his patients, was guilty of malpractice and the Tribunal found that "[it] is not a plausible, reliable, or scientific technique for making medical decisions" and "there is no plausible evidence that PMRT has any scientific validity."[5][6] In the second case Gorringe was found by the Tribunal to have again relied on BDORT to the exclusion of traditional diagnoses, which ultimately led to the death of a patient.[7][6] As a result of these findings and conclusions, Gorringe was fined and stripped of his license to practice medicine.

--Anthon01 20:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Reading both NZT 1 and 2 reports, which are our most reliable mainstream sources, makes it clear that the NZT's criticism of BDORT is largely grounded in its use as a replacement for conventional diagnostic techniques, which can then cause diagnoses to be missed. This is what they say Gorringe did, in both NZT hearings. Removing mention of Gorringe, who was prominently at the center of both cases, is removing well sourced, pertinent information. We are not aware of any similar cases. Crum375 20:28, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

Please separate the cases as to avoid a WP:SYNTH violation. Please clarify. --Anthon01 (talk) 22:01, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

There is no WP:SYNTH violation. SYNTH would be if you have an article about subject X, which mentions subject Y, and you bring in a source about Y that does not mention X, and create, based on Y, a new interpretation of X. There is nothing like that here. We have subject BDORT, we have two main sources for it: NZT1 and NZT2. Both directly address BDORT, our main subject, and we make no new interpretative statements. Crum375 (talk) 23:17, 4 December 2007 (UTC)

I see two major thrust in the NZ1 findings. 1) Cannell's scientific opinion of BDORT/PMRT was that it wasn't a valid dx method. The Tribunal affirmed his findings. Based upon RS & V, I am fine with that. 2) Gorringed practice of BDORT/PMRT lead to mis dx and malpractice. But was he practicing BDORT/PMRT? NZ1 states that

368. The evidence he adduced regarding PMRT[BDORT] did not substantiate the manner in which he himself practised it.
369. His methods were positively contradicted by Dr Gibb, the practitioner whose practices he claimed to follow and therefore validate his own.
370. The Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Gorringe’s use of BDORT/PMRT was idiosyncratic and was not supported by any of his fellow practitioners.

From the NZ1 report, Gorringed practice of his own technique lead to malpractice. If Gorringe was practicing BDORT/PMRT as Omura teaches it, then I would agree with your inclusion of this text in the introduction. Reading NZ1 where the scientific validity of BDORT/PMRT is taken up, it would appear that Gorringe had misrepresented himself as practicing BDORT/PMRT. Because of this, Gorringe's inclusion in the article as it stands now misrepresents the facts from the NZ1 report. --Anthon01 (talk) 00:10, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

We've discussed this issue at length on this talk page and its predecessor. The point is simple: For NZT2, it mentions BDORT only, so that is not an issue. For NZT1, the experts there address BDORT and PMRT interchangeably numerous times, as can be seen in the sample quotes included in the article. The experts are saying that PMRT and BDORT, from their scientific perspective, are effectively the same. What we do is follow their quotes very closely. If you feel otherwise, please find a statement in the article that you believe is not well sourced, and we can address it specifically. Crum375 (talk) 00:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree with BDORT and PMRT being the same. The problem is the Tribunal found that Gorringe wasn't practicing BDORT or PMRT but a idiosyncratic version of it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Anthon01 (talk • contribs) 01:20, 5 December 2007 (UTC) I am not questioning that BDORT and PMRT are used interchangeably. Please reread my comments understanding that I am using BDORT and PMRT interchangeably also. --Anthon01 (talk) 01:36, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

I replaced BDORT or PMRT with BDORT/PMRT above. Anthon01 (talk) 01:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This is why we lean heavily on quotes. In the quotes you see the experts clearly equating PMRT and BDORT, and since PMRT (to the best of our knowledge) was Gorringe's own name for his specific procedure, we (the NZT experts, Quackwatch, and WP editors) refer to Gorringe's procedure as PMRT. If you believe otherwise, please find a source showing that someone other than Gorringe ever used the term PMRT, and/or that PMRT is not what Gorringe practiced. Crum375 (talk) 01:49, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is the quote from NZ1.

368. The evidence he adduced regarding PMRT[BDORT] did not substantiate the manner in which he himself practised it.

369. His methods were positively contradicted by Dr Gibb, the practitioner whose practices he claimed to follow and therefore validate his own.

370. The Tribunal is satisfied that Dr Gorringe’s use of BDORT/PMRT was idiosyncratic and was not supported by any of his fellow practitioners.

In other words, whatever he was doing was unique to him. Anthon01 (talk) 02:30, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Gorringe had his own version of BDORT, which he called 'PMRT'. The experts decided that from their scientific and professional perspective, BDORT and PMRT were effectively the same. We have no reliable sources telling us that what Gorringe's "fellow practitioners" supported or not, would have made any difference from the NZT's perspective. Crum375 (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Where does it say that experts decided "from their scientific and professional perspective, BDORT and PMRT were effectively the same?" Anthon01 (talk) 12:47, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Here is what the NZT1 says:

At each consultation Dr Gorringe “muscle tested” Mrs Short by a procedure called “Peak Muscle Resistance Testing” which he used as a diagnostic tool. We refer to this procedure later and throughout this judgment as PMRT. It is also referred to as Bi Digital O Ring Testing (BDORT). — NZT1, par. 100, emphasis added

To me this means the NZT1 decided to equate PMRT and BDORT. Crum375 (talk) 14:39, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually the NZ1 report states that he was practicing an idiosyncratic form of 'PMRT/BDORT.' It also states the materials they were given on BDORT did not reflect what Gorringe was practicing. Anthon01 (talk) 16:02, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

This point, amongst others, has previously been discussed at very great length. The consensus established after infinite discussion, two requests for deletion, and one arbcom case and ruling, as bearing on the entry's notability in particular, is that the NZTs conflate PMRT/BDORT, and characterize both/these as a subclass of AK. I would respectfully suggest thorough familiarity with these previous discussions and debates. If there is any new information, that would seem to me infinitely appropriate. At present, however, I see merely the parallel invocation of previous positions placed by minority defenders of these practices, which arguments have been thoroughly considered, and which found little support and most certainly no consensus. TealCyfre0 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposal

I've suggested that this article be merged into applied kinesiology. it seems more natural as a subsection there, as much of the presentation here feels like advertising and can be dispensed with. your thoughts? --Ludwigs2 20:23, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

This article used to be an advertisement, but nowadays it's framed mostly around the Gorringe malpractice trial, because this is where the medical establishment (i.e. mainstream science) had a chance to review this procedure and the implications of its use in lieu of conventional methods. If we were to merge it into a larger article, I don't think we could reasonably focus as much on these issues. Also, much of the early contention in this article related to the differences, if any, between BDORT and PMRT, and we have a section dedicated to clarification of this topic. A merge would dilute or eliminate this, because it is less important in the larger AK perspective, resulting in a loss for those who are confused by the use of the two nearly-interchangeable terms by different sources. In summary, I think this article, focusing on this specific procedure (for which there are annual symposia, including some funded by NY state, or at least there were until recently), and the ramifications of its use, which apparently resulted in a dead patient, should stand on its own for best presentation. Crum375 (talk) 22:07, 16 March 2010 (UTC)

Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes (JSHO)

Greetings. I have amended and added to the introduction, but I do not know how to add in the linked reference. Can someone please assist, thank you? The peer reviewed journal is: http://www.thejsho.com/ The reference is to this published article listed now on this website in last month's issue, 'Complete Reversal of Stage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma. Vol. 3 No.10, Jan. 2011' 202.63.58.223 (talk) 11:54, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I would love to add content from journals that meet our MEDRS guidelines. This content is obviously covered by MEDRS. Because it needs to be discussed, I have moved it here:

• A clinical application of the BDORT that was used to successfully achieve 100% remission of an advanced stage cancer that is generally considered incurable and fatal by mainstream medicine has been independently published by an international peer-reviewed medical-scientific journal. The clinical result was confirmed by before and after PET and CT scans [one reference to add].

The article in question:

• Richard Malter, James Woessner, Alan Loader, Helen Tyrrell, "Complete Reversal of Stage IV Squamous Cell Carcinoma. BDORT determined dosages of organic flaxseed oil in vegan capsules, for pro-immune system effect for the HBV infection." Journal of the Science of Healing Outcomes, Vol. 3 No.10, Jan. 2011

Unfortunately the link provided for the article doesn't help us see its content, so no evaluation can be made. A link to a PUBMED copy of the article or abstract would normally be sufficient, but since this journal doesn't seem to be listed at PUBMED, we're unable to determine if it's a RS in any sense, and the nature of the journal doesn't bode well. It's a journal designed for believers in pseudoscientific ideas who need a vehicle to publish their views. Anyone can create such a publication and claim it's "peer-reviewed". Such peer-review isn't worth much when it's people with the same POV doing the reviewing of their friend's work. It does have two well-known pushers of pseudoscience on the editorial board, Andrew Weil and Wayne Jonas, which doesn't help to boost confidence in the journal (on the contrary!), except to those uninformed about their views. Especially Jonas is known to back some of the most pseudoscientific homeopathy research ever performed (and debunked).

The lead author is Richard Malter, whose COI advocacy activities and use of sockpuppets to push BDORT here have led to bans from Wikipedia. So we also have a possible COI situation here since this IP originates from Malter's location.

That itself isn't the most important issue. The quality of the source is the major problem. It simply isn't allowable per MEDRS. If it has recently been added to PUBMED, please let me know, because I'm not finding it.

The very fact that this research is being done and claiming scientific legitimacy is another proof that BDORT more than qualifies for being classed as pseudoscientific. If it were only claimed as a metaphysical or religious belief and unaccompanied by treatment of patients it might not qualify for such a description. This weird blending of beliefs with scientific terminology, and then actual treatment of patients, is at best very dubious and at worst potentially dangerous.

It would appear that the only legitimate use for this reference is as a proof of the pseudoscientific nature of BDORT. The reference is a smoking gun. -- Brangifer (talk) 18:58, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I am aware opinions about CAM, are strong on both sides, and there are many valid arguments; and I respect yours.

Like you say, the point to focus on here is if this is a reliable source. In fact, the journal is a peer-reviewed one, that is explicitly endorsed as such, by an internationally eminent and awarded mainstream qualified scientific-medical Board of Editors: http://www.thejsho.com/editboard.aspx ,including a Nobel Prize winner for physics, and numerous Professors of medicine, and science, at leading and major universities and other academic institutions, both in the USA and worldwide. The journal was begun partly and edited by Professor Rustom Roy [1923-2010] http://rustumroy.com/ ,another internationally recognised very eminent scientist - who please note also refers on his web page to this journal as "A new peer-review journal". Also, please note and take the time to review carefully, that the aims of the journal, http://www.thejsho.com/aims.aspx ,are explicitly to follow scientific principles and rigorous standards for acceptance for publication. These individuals' mainstream recognition and current standing as eminent people in the international scientific and medical community is unquestionable. Among them are in fact some of the awarded and recognised leading scientists in the world. To decide that this journal is unreliable, would be to say that the integrity and scientific credibility of these individuals, who have formed an editorial board on this journal, is doubtful!; obviously this is impossible - without saying that the universities and scientific establishments at which these people hold Professorships are unreliable (Universities in Stanford, Pennsylvania, California, St. Petersburg, etc), that the Nobel Prize for Science in Physics is not really a mainstream credible award, etc etc. Finally, this Editorial Board has in fact reviewed, and published, this article. And the title of the article clearly describes its subject and content and result.

I also note that the guidelines state that Do not reject a high-quality type of study because you personally disagree with the study's inclusion criteria, references, funding sources, or conclusions.

So perhaps I could ask you to kindly review your opinion on this?202.63.58.223 (talk) 02:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

You write: "To decide that this journal is unreliable, would be to say that the integrity and scientific credibility of these individuals, who have formed an editorial board on this journal, is doubtful!;" but that is exactly the case here. These are not highly respected mainstream scientists. They are fringe scientists who have created a journal to push their fringe agenda and I doubt this journal comes anywhere close to MEDRS for stating things as fact. All it can be used for is stating opinion. Other more reliable MEDRS would need to be used to state things as fact.

You still have not provided us with a way for us to judge the quality of the journal. We can't access it. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

A Nobel laureate in science, and professors of science and medicine at leading universities in the USA, an emeritus director at Max PlancK, are not fringe scientists. They are in fact highly respected eminent scientists. This is a fact as far as the words "mainstream" and "scientist" are used in the world today. I do not understand how you form another opinion(?)

Looking for consensus on JSHO reference

Hello Brangifer (and others). As you have made no reply yet, I am assuming in the meanwhile that given the above discussion you might not have objections to this reference, but not sure. I think you are still around from the article history page where you are still making edits(?) So I leave this for another 1 week for more discussion time, and if no more discussion or objections after a week we can consider there is a consensus to use the JSHO reference as a reliable source and we can add in the text I did originally (see above please). I hope everyone thinks that is reasonable time frame.202.63.58.223 (talk) 00:26, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

I first saw this now and have amended your comments above by removing your heading and adding the proper indents. You shouldn't have started a new section, but just added your comment to the existing thread. I have also replied above. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

CONSENSUS on JSHO ?

Since there has been no further comment or objection, and this has been left for about 2 weeks, I guess there is a consensus. Future editors, please see the discussion above about this reference. I will add in the information to the article accordingly.202.63.58.223 (talk) 13:00, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

Mr Malter – It would be helpful if you respected your having been banned from this entry rather than attempt to reshape it for self-promotional pseudo-scientific purposes in your professional interest. TheChartreusePirate (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2011 (UTC)

TheChartreusePirate, I am not Richard Malter. You may be surprised to hear that there are more people in Victoria, Australia. I am reverting to my previous edit as you haven't given any reason for not doing so according to wikipedia guidelines. 202.63.58.223 (talk) 03:16, 28 February 2011 (UTC)

I have replied above. There is no consensus to use what seems like a self-published pseudoscience journal for the statement of pseudoscientific opinions as fact. We can only use higher quality journals to do that. See my comment above.

If you still wish to press the issue, I suggest you take this up at WP:RS/N, but after you get blocked for block evasion that might be hard to do. -- Brangifer (talk) 08:50, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Having not left an opinion is 2 or so weeks, I naturally assumed you had no further reply; I hope you can see that, and am sorry if I misunderstood you. You repeat your opinions that are obviously strong and that I respect as aforesaid. Thank you for your suggestion.202.63.58.223 (talk) 01:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

I understand. -- Brangifer (talk) 02:42, 2 March 2011 (UTC)