Talk:BDORT

• Mediation archives

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(?)202.63.58.223 (talk) 05:38, 2 March 2011 (UTC)

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)

RS/N consensus on JSHO = "Not a MEDRS"

That consensus can be read at Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#JSHO_a_reliable_source.3F. -- Brangifer (talk) 20:20, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

AITSE

I've added to the entry to reflect the fact that AITSE has characterized BDORT/Omura explicitly and at length as pseudoscientific quackery, with appropriate cite reference external link. AtomikWeasel (talk) 20:52, 27 November 2012 (UTC)