Talk:BDORT/Mediation/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Discussion: Quackwatch citation

Okay, this heading is for discussion of the first contested citation, which is reference #4 in the article, Quackwatch characterization of the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test or 'Omura Test' en passant.

It appears that the reliability of the citation is not called into question; however, the application of the citation is disputed. While the title and slogan of Quackwatch ("Your Guide to Quackery, Health Fraud, and Intelligent Decisions") implies accusations of "quackery" and the article indeed very strongly criticizes the "Q-Ray Bracelet", there is barely a mention of Omura or the O-ring test other than to say that the manufacturer of the Q-Ray Bracelet claims the bracelet's effectiveness can be tested using the O-ring test. The article does not assess the O-ring test at all.

I propose that this citation be removed from the article, as it does not appear to apply. As such, the phrase, "which has been characterized as quackery" would also need to be removed unless another citation can be found to support it.

Please indicate whether you support or oppose this proposal. If you oppose, please provide a rationale and opionally, a counter-proposal. --Aguerriero (talk) 14:52, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I'm not indissolubly wed to the notion of the application of a specific term, terms, cite or cites. I simply think it's important the opening graph provide an appropriate, balanced, accurate description of the entry. So far as the specific cite in question here, perhaps this would be a better cite from Quackwatch if one were appropriate [1]. It's part of an overall within Quackwatch the heading information of which is here [2] Arcsincostan 15:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Arcsincostan, I'm somewhat confused about your responses thus far to citation analysis, as you were one who initially rejected the notion of analyzing text, and suggested we analyze the citations first. In pursuit of a neutral and verifiable opening paragraph, we must first determine reliable sources. That is the approach the group agreed to. That being said, I still do not see anything compelling about the Quackwatch citation - even the links you provided now only mention the O-ring test in passing. They do not assess it at all. Therefore, it will be extremely hard to assert that this particular citation should be used in this article. --Aguerriero (talk) 15:34, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your suggestion, the citation and text supported should be removed. Addhoc 16:11, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As I said, I don't see it as an issue. The lord created thermonuclear devices for a reason – nuke it. Arcsincostan 21:38, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Arc and Add - I see no sourced justification to directly call BDORT quackery at this time, so it can be excised. I do think the 'See Also' reference to Alternative Medicine, Quackery and Pseudoscience should be re-inserted, as I think they educate the reader about these topics that are indirectly referenced (e.g. BDORT mentioned in a list of entries in a 'quackwatch' list, BDORT indirectly associated with 'pseudoscience' in the NZ report), so the readers can form their own opinions. Crum375 22:18, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

>>>>>> I have added one more citation to be considered above in the existing list, labelled H. I have also added an additional comment re the tribunial citation under the CRUM375 heading<<<<<<Richardmalter 21:56, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

And what are you in agreement with the consensus currently building about the citation being discussed under this heading? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:00, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I am not sure I understand you. If I understand you correctly, you are asking if I agree or not that the citation and text supported should be removed(?). Yes I agree with this.Richardmalter 22:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

You understand me :) Thanks.

Discussion closed and action taken as agreed.

--Aguerriero (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion: Dominic Lu citation

Okay, the next citation to discuss is the Dominic Lu citation, which supports the following paragraph:

Dominic Lu, DDS, Fellow of Yoshiaki Omura's International College of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics, Faculty Member of Yoshiaki Omura's Teaching Seminars/Workshops, and Editor of Acupuncture & Electro-Therapeutics Research, The International Journal, of which Yoshiaki Omura is Editor-in-Chief, has acknowledged that 'having a patent in the U.S. does not mean the method or a product is acceptable or recognized by FDA or medico-dental establishments.'

As stated by two parties, the citation no longer works. Any proposals on how to deal with this one? Is anyone willing to search for a working citation for this? --Aguerriero (talk) 22:47, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

As a fascinating coincidence, this link, which had been fine, and was to an archive of material on Omura's Japanese site, ceased to become functional after it was put to critical use in this entry. I have found no other, and given the circumstances surrounding its becoming a dead link, I think it unlikely. Therefore, it will have to go, in my judgement. I would suggest, however, we bear this in mind as we consider the utility and reliability of sites run by Omura and/or his proponents, who on the evidence have exerted some energies to shape this entry in their favor. Arcsincostan 23:19, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree a fascinating coincidence, not in the least bit motivated by silencing crticism, obviously. I had a look in google and also couldn't find any other mention. Consequently, I would suggest we remove this paragraph. Addhoc 12:25, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

The USPTO does not evaluate the medical efficacy of medical procedures or devices.[3] That is the job of the USFDA, which is a separate and independent government office. Omura has a patent for BDORT, which means the USPTO did not find a precedent for it and that it is not obvious to someone 'skilled in the art'; The USPTO is not equipped or staffed for and does not perform a clinical evaluation, as that would usurp and overlap the authority congress granted to the USFDA. Anyway, to make a claim that the Omura patent represents anything more than a government clerk accepting a filing fee and verifying no precendent and non-obviousness, we would need a reliable source. Crum375 01:58, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

As we have seen repeated attempts by Omura or his proponents to claim the patent established medical efficacy, I think it is extremely important to bear that standard in mind – that the burden of proof must be on the claimant, and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. Arcsincostan 02:14, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Aguerriero, et al, consider me absent from all further discussion. I wish you the best. Arcsincostan 04:45, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Bye! Addhoc 12:27, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I think we are in agreement that this passage should be removed. This will also likely create a precedent for considering the next citations; if they are not from an independent and stable source, they should not be used for anything other than basic factual data (like Omura's date of birth or similar non-contentious information). --Aguerriero (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

Discussion closed and action taken as agreed.

--Aguerriero (talk) 15:04, 22 August 2006 (UTC)