Talk:Yoshiaki Omura

Archives
May 2006 June 2006

AfD Result Notice

This page was the subject of an AfD discussion closed on 27 June 2006. The result was Keep. Xoloz 17:29, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't we have an AfD history template on this page? (this is the 2nd AfD survival to my knowledge). Crum375 17:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I removed the old template because it covered the topic at a different name - its applicability now that there has been a pagemove/rewrite is questionable. This AfD was the first for "Yoshiaki Omura." As for the above notice, I hand type AfD notices by personal choice. The same result still governs, don't worry! ;) Xoloz 17:48, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I am not worried, but I think having a template at the top of the Talk page, that survives archiving edits, is useful to newcomers. Crum375 18:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I added a suggested box on top - comments? Crum375 19:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand that this subject was decided as notable on its own (ie not dependent on the NZ Tribunial), is this correct?--Richardmalter 10:24, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

This is what the closing admin Xoloz had to say:

"The result of the debate was Keep There is a consensus that Dr. Omura is notable for the controversies surrounding his "treatments", although the merit of these treatments is highly dubious."

The main documented 'controversy' featured in the AfD debate was the NZ Tribunal's report, as far as I know. Crum375 11:07, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I am discussing this here [[1]] with Xoloz, as his statements about what consensus there was is clearly not accurate.--Richardmalter 01:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

On [[2]], Xoloz wrote that: . . .but my remarks on Dr. Omura's repute are not at all binding -- I was only explaining how I came to conclude that the article should be kept. In a way, my remark was a "worst-case senario": even if this man is a charlatan, he still belongs in our encyclopedia. Now that the article has been kept, it is up to you and other editors more knowledgeable on the subject to flesh out on the talk page how credible (or not) the doctor is, based on evidence available. In that endeavor, my comments are utterly irrelevant -- and if anyone says differently, do feel free to quote me on that. :) Best wishes, Xoloz 05:16, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

So we still have to discuss if this article is Notable on its own. I think so; Philosophos said the same. Other comments?--Richardmalter 13:00, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

If by 'on its own' you mean that either BDORT or the NZ Tribunal report can be excluded, I would disagree. I think the article is fairly good as it stands, though not perfect. If you have some specific idea to improve it, please feel free to suggest it. I propose we make suggestions here first, to improve efficiency. Crum375 14:01, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

(A) Yes, I mean without the NZ report. So we still dont have consensus here. I mention agian that Philosophus agreed with me (see archive) on this. What this would mean, would be taking the NZ report and putting it all lower down where the whole section on it is there already; currently it is repeated info which is itself no good.

(B) Also the repeated variations of However, these claims have not been verified by any conventional independent peer-reviewed assessment. need to go - they are commentaries.

(C) The See Alsos are also problems. Obviously this expresses opinion that BDORT/Omura etc are catagorized under pseudoscience etc [i remind again that these were added while i was away less than 48 hours previously - itself a reason for them going - for simple integrity of process]. "Pseudoscience" (and "quackary") as SlimVirgin earlier commented would have to have direct citations for inclusion. Sticking them at the end under a See Also title does not change their POV bias. Why not have, "Science", "electromagnetism", "invention" etc etc there too. Clearly this is POV sneaking in.

(D) Since after long discussion and detailed examination, you agreed the shinnick article is reliable and neutral according to the very criteria you set as a standard for us, I want to include info about it. I did previously, and you deleted it for no WP criteria reason, immediately - on the Work version!--Richardmalter 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Last, perhaps you would be interested in a quick personal comment. I, as you noted, do earn a living partly based on the ability I have with BDORT. You can only I realize of course take my word for the following, or not. I believe that if you could have been able to see how I have been able to use this Test and based directly on it and not confused with other many nebulous factors also involved, as a means of diagnosis and guide in treatment, been able to help many people who had been through the mainstream western medical system and found no help for their often very severe discomforts, often (very) young people who would otherwise had probably gone through lives of operations and ever recurring semi-reductionist-diagnosed illnesses, I believe you would understand why I am so intent on a non POV article and giving Omura and the BDORT "a fair shout" as I think you put it earlier. Remember, the way science progresses is new information is discovered; it is not understood, people ridicule it; gradually it is accepted as possible; then new groups of people later accept it as commonplace knowledge. BDORT is simply going through the stages. This is depsite what we here can argue about abstractly. BTW, its the same with acupuncture. The studies carried out are just not fitting to the subject. Any good acupucturist will tell you that a certain point is sometimes useful and sometimes not - depending on the very precise condition of the patient at the time of each treatment. So when some people come along and construct a correct western EBM test for the efficacy of acupoint #X - they are not even in the right ball park. Any good acupuncturist will also tell you that how you stimulate the point makes the difference between effect and no effect (and in japanese style treatments, this 'effect' is referring to objective measurable 'clearing' of highly localized non-dermatome pattern related palpable pressure evoked pain - like that from blood pooling in the abdomen from (stress related) adrenal vasoconstriction in the lower left quadrant) - by distal treatment points that have no neurological connection to the target area; the stimualtion can also be sub-neurological eg Microamp (which is why the Professor at the NZ tribunial was also on the wrong playing field holding the wrong bat for the game in hand). So the gulf between what is discussed by people who read reports and the like and those who actually do these things hands-on, is as wide as the oceans that lie inbetween (I think) you and I.--Richardmalter 13:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

post-AFD changes in article

I think the article is near-acceptable in its present form, with perhaps some minor tweaking needed. RichardMalter, who is an admitted BDORT proponent and practitioner, feels it is too negative towards BDORT as it stands. I think we need some more neutral editors (I personally don't have any bias except my desire to conform to WP policies), to take a look at the article and decide if any of Richard's suggested changes (in his above list) are necessary or justified, given WP's neutrality and reliable sourcing policies. Thanks, Crum375 14:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• I think the article is near-acceptable, also. From the information I've seen in archives it is generally acknowledged that Omura and his apparently very small group of followers are charlatans (or delusional), but NPOV rules out stating such plainly in the entry itself. I think the entry in its present form is reasonably solid given the tempest in a teapot controversy presented here. Any attempt to slant it to advocacy which seems to be the suggestion, is out of the question with respect to WP policy. Arcsincostan 21:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

If there were a reliable source calling Omura a charlatan, then it could be included, in principle. But to the best of my knowledge, no such source exists. One could argue that indirectly the NZ Tribunal is implying as much, but there all we can do is use direct quotes - we are not allowed to interpret, especially so in possible libel, as that would constitute original work on our part. Crum375 22:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• It appears to be something with a tiny following unless I missed something. Mr. Malter is clearly an interested party and I believe WP has policies against advertising. I think the article is probably fine as it is. People can figure it out, just as the admin could. The obligation is to live by the policies. Arcsincostan 23:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• “Science means simply observing and explaining; it should not be confused with the philosophy of modern scientific practice which is a different thing entirely.” – This is a quote of Mr. Malter, from his site.

There are also repeated statements that Mr. Malter’s procedures, including the application of Dr. Omura’s techniques, are reproducible, double-blinded – yet, despite apparently having been applied for a number of years there is no evidence of their having been subjected to any external scrutiny. The point here, I think, is that Mr. Malter’s definition of “scientific practice” would not seem to be one which would be recognized as standard, yet he seems to want to claim validity for his and Dr. Omura’s techniques by the conventional definition. This seems to me to present a problem, and a conflict in usage of terms. Doubtless it is sincere and well-intended. Still, it is a problem.

The New Zealand commission’s experts made a very simple point with respect to this issue: It is not necessary for conventional science to understand a diagnostic technique or treatment in order to evaluate its efficacy. In a sense, this is parallel to the point Mr. Malter seems to make. Mr. Malter seems to argue in this Discussion and on his site, in the same form that Dr. Gorringe’s defense did in his trial in New Zealand – that orthodox science fails to understand this radically different approach and thus cannot evaluate it.

The problem here, though, or the conflict, is, it seems to me very simple, and even obvious: As the New Zealand tribunal’s experts point out, it simply isn’t necessary to have a correct theory or understanding in order to evaluate efficacy. Let me offer a very simple, very crude parallel example: If one’s understanding of thermodynamics were that a magical force invested steam with magical power, and that that force could be concentrated, stimulated by the destruction of the life force present in the burning of coal, etc, then made use of, this theory would not be “accurate” in contemporary scientific terms – yet it could be applied to the construction of a steam engine which would, in fact, operate. Mr. Malter, with all respect, seems not to grasp or to accept this point. It simply isn’t necessary for “conventional” “Western” science to comprehend the basis of Mr. Malter’s or Dr. Omura’s theories in order for it to validate them if they are, in fact, valid.

It would be the simplest thing in the world for Mr. Malter, rather than arguing the point, to construct a study which would satisfy even the most skeptical observers if his claims are true. Yet he has not, so far as I can tell from his site, done so – just as, to judge from the evidence available, Dr. Omura has not done so. Instead we have what I am certain are sincere statements of people being helped, of a lack of appreciation on the part of conventional medicine, etc. Now, I would quite agree that there are, to put it kindly, very real shortcomings in “conventional” medicine. Indeed, I think this perception is widely shared, and rightly so. Yet, despite these limitations, the fact of the matter, so far as I can tell, is that the New Zealand experts were right in noting that Dr. Gorringe could easily have constructed an objective demonstration – just as Mr. Malter or Dr. Omura might. The belief system of the observers is effectively irrelevant in such a case.

I would sincerely urge Mr. Malter, if he feels, as I believe he does, that he has something of great importance to offer the world, to construct such a study, or to urge others, such as Dr. Omura or another of Dr. Omura’s supporters, to do so.

The cruel, simple, reasonable fact is that, even if these techniques have something to offer the world, the avoidance or failure of so doing casts doubt upon their validity in the minds of most if not all objective observers which are not likely to be satisfied, in my estimation, by repeated assertions effectively confined within a small self-defining group.

Arcsincostan 17:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Arcsincostan, for the comments. You are mistaken if you think that I do not understand the basic simple idea that there are observable phenomena and there are explanations, and that the latter does not necessarily equate to the former. But I suggest sticking to WP policy discussions precisely, will be more productive in the short run here - however genuinely interested I would be to have a longer discussion on the subject of science etc with you another time. I made some concrete points above about the current state of the article that definitely need to be addressed. Thank you. --Richardmalter 03:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• You are very welcome, Richard. You are however, evidently laboring under the misapprehension that I am addressing you, in particular. I am simply offering an observation relative to your suggestions re WP editorial process for this entry, for which you elected to offer personal testimony. The quotation cited indicates that in addition to being a proponent of these practices who makes a living from them, and thus is effectively attempting to render the entry an advertisement, you also employ a personal definition of 'science' which you define as in contrast to standard definitions of 'science', yet you seem to want to claim the standard definition's mantle of authority, which clearly indicates a deep and effectively unresolvable conflict as to intent, as you have yourself described it. I feel that this personal element is best removed from the discussion, and the entry confined to standard process rather than one particular editor's personal definition of scientific method which he has himself indicated is not that which is generally understood by the term 'scientific method.' WP cannot, so far as I understand it, resolve these conflicts for you. I would suggest you find resolution for them elsewhere, perhaps by presenting your researches to the world in a more appropriate forum for personal and scientific validation than WP. WP is not for the presentation of original research, as you well know. Since your definition of science is by your own statement, as quoted, personal and individual rather than the more conventional notion you dismissively characterize, it cannot, by your own definition, satisfy WP criteria of conventional validation. You seem not to have grasped the simple point: It is not appropriate re WP editorial policies to attempt to shape the entry to reflect claims not established according to WP criteria in the real world – as opposed to this discussion. I would, to repeat, suggest you might more effectively energize yourself to establish credibility in the real world first, then employ those references to shape the WP entry rather than attempt the reverse. I'm certain all deeply respect your sincerity and intent and wish you well in that endeavour, as in all things. Cheers. Arcsincostan 05:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

PS: To date, I see no indication whatsoever for support for your specific suggestions as to changes in the entry, only acknowledgement that the entry is perceived as noteworthy on the basis of its essentially dubious claims. If you feel you can muster consensus for your suggestions, intended to present those claims favorably, by presentation of appropriate sources per WP criteria, by all means continue to have at it at whatever commitment of time and energy you deem appropriate. Cheers. Arcsincostan 05:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Much of what you write is your POV. You are repeatedly doing yourself a diservice by misrepresenting me. I will not enter into a personal discussion. Please address point A above if you care to. Thanks.--Richardmalter 07:25, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

• Loathe though I am to confuse you with facts, you have, in fact, presented nothing but POV in this forum, so far as even the most cursory reading of the record indicates, from first to last. You have repeatedly asserted as fact what are your opinions, which opinions have not been evidenced by appropriate sources, which are, further, by your own proud declaration, those of someone who makes his living from practicing what he characterizes as 'science', but which he then, by his own words, further defines as other than any standard recognizable definition of science, and which would, in fact, serve as well as a description of the power of prayer, voodoo, or what-have-you. The likelihood of engaging in meaningful discussion with the Red Queen is rather higher. I will repeat, sir: The burden of convincing others to a consensus in your favour is upon you. You have to date, failed to do so. The fact that you seemingly take this simple observation of evident fact as irksome is an issue for you to address, not for you to require others to address on your behalf. I would again suggest, as you have utterly failed to convince anyone of the force of your arguments, that you seek validation in the real world of science and medicine rather than revisiting your limitations upon others who, by all evidence, are plainly unpersuaded. That said, the allocation of your time and energies are, of course, yours to make, and if you care to expend them in evidently fruitless efforts rather than subject your claims to external validtion you are, of course, entitled to do so, and to derive whatever satisfaction you presumably so derive. Others, in turn, will draw their own, inevitable conclusions, as has been evidenced whenever your arguments have surfaced in wider view – a simple fact which, as many others, seems to elude your discernment. To flatter yourself that misrepresentation of your views is required, or has occurred, I assure you, is absurd, as anyone consulting the record has more than sufficient evidence from which to judge. Cheers :) Arcsincostan 09:01, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I havn't made a change in this article for months, while I think all other contributors have without consensus; so I have made the following changes which are strictly according to WP rules to make the article more WP acceptable viz WP rules. Befor that, I have added in the Shinnick study info (after long discussion, Crum375 agreed earlier that this source of info met the criteria for WP:Relaibility and Neutrality - that he had also analysed during the discussion). There is no reason not to include it - which would be a form of POV censorship. I have put this under a 'Medical Opinions' heading with the NZ Tribunial - please change the heading if you can think of a better one. I have left for now the NZ Tribunial note earlier in the article since this I guess will want to be argued further re essential Notability of the entry which is yet undecided. But I do not think that repeated information can possibly be a neutral feature - especially if it is WP:OR and not-citated at all. So I have taken out the WP:OR repeated comments under each heading - they are clearly WP:OR and non-citated, commentary. I have deleted the See Also section for the obvious biased POV reasons I gave just above. (The making of this addition also broke the 48 hour guideline for changes that all the contributors at the time had agreed to). The Alternative Medicine ref remains included earlier on in the article. Still it is not perfect - but it conforms to WP criteria better in this version. --Richardmalter 09:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think the changes that I made unilaterally, and which were reversed by Crum, should be strongly considered. This is my first time contributing to wikipedia, so of course my formatting errors should be corrected, as should any stylistic issues and such. I also understand that for this article changes are preferred to be made by consensus rather than unilaterally; therefore I apologize for having done so and now wish to have the changes that I attempted to make considered for application. (I am sure they are fully visible in the page history). One noteworthy change that I do not think one can in good conscience not include relates to the New Zealand tribunal. The author of the article repeatedly refers to the tribunal in the article with the effect of making it sound like the tribunal discredits Omura, whether or not this is intentional. However, it is incredibly misleading to quote the tribunal stating that PMRT (BDORT) has not scientific validity and yet NOT include the fact that the tribunal also included the statement that the techniques Dr. Corringe was being punished for using were NOT the same as those advocated by Dr. Omura. The tribunal clearly states this, and considering this is Dr. Omura's biography page, that is pretty relevant information. It is also irresponsible not to note that Omura himself disavowed Corringe. Perhaps that might be an "unattributable quote", but at the very least the tribunal's conclusion that the technique under review was NOT Omura's absolutely must be added.

 I also think it is unnecessary to repeatedly states that claims about these techniques have not been substantiated by any independent medical review or something to that effect.  That statement entirely hinges upon the utterly subjective notion of what thorough review would be.  The fact is, you admit that the technique is patented.  In order to receive a U.S. patent, any technique or piece of equipment is given THOROUGH scientific review.  They do not just give out patents because you got there first.  This may not be proof of effectiveness, but it is proof of independent scientific review.  
 I also think the information about the professor of neuroscience advocating for Dr. Omura is essential.  I realize that I did not provide any direct quotes or links right there; as I said I am new and am still mastering the techniques.  However, assuming that I could document all of those claims, would that not then be appropriate for posting in the article?  I mean, a distinguished neuroscientist and chairman of physiology providing verifiable research in support, would that satisfy your need for independent review?
 Please address my concerns as soon as possible.  One reason that I would like to see these concerns addressed as soon as possible is that there is reason to suspect that the original poster or one of the contributors may be somone with a personal grudge against Dr. Omura.  Dr. Omura was, at on point, the victim of attempted extortion by a former employee who threated him using exactly the same rationale as this article, in much the same manner (the NZ tribunal issue).  Despite Omura's consultation with lawyers confirming his legal rights, and despite the tribunal clearly presenting conclusions that contradicted this attempted con, there were still issues with this disgruntled employee who is believed to have stolen some computer information at the time as well.  The concerns addressed here must therefore strongly be considered.  
 And finally, I wish to reiterate that given that the part of the tribunals conclusions that support my claim are just as easily verifiable as those actually posted here, and given that they contradict the apparent attempted usage of the tribunal's proceedings here, the section contained in the paragraphs I described must in all good conscience by included.
  Please discuss.

Unilateral changes by Richard Malter

Richard, I think it would be best to discuss changes here before modifying the article itself. I myself also have some changes I wanted to propose, but I won't do it without at least some semblance of consensus here, and my own avowed agenda is simply to adhere to WP policies and converge to the best possible article. In your case especially, as a declared advocate of BDORT, I think it would be best if you refrain from making direct edits and suggest them here first. As I have said in the past, we all have the same 'Edit' button. It makes no sense to make changes that are non-consensual, especially when done by a BDORT advocate, as they will be quickly reverted. Thanks, Crum375 12:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Message to new user Icaet

Dear new user Icaet (talk · contribs), if you are in fact a new user, and have never edited Wikipedia (WP) before, then welcome to WP!. I hope you will take the time and read the WP policies, such as WP:5P. Please note that this specific article deals with a controversial subject. In fact, much time and many words have been spent debating various aspects of this subject, namely Dr. Omura and his BDORT invention, and the present article, represents a careful neutral point of view balance, reached after much discussion. As a new user, it would be useful if you could review the past discussions, both here on the Talk page and its archives, as well as in the AFD discussions (all linked into at the top of this page). After you have reviewed all past discussions, since this is a controversial subject, please suggest here on this page your proposed edits. We will carefully review them individually and decide, collectively, if they merit inclusion in the article. Welcome again, and thank you for your understanding. Crum375 20:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)