Wikipedia Article Clarification

Recently, giving the false impression that they understand the subject, some individuals who have never studied, learned or researched the BDORT, and have no known medical or scientific qualifications, have made false and irresponsible statements using the user-written Wikipedia online encyclopedia. They have deliberately misrepresented Dr. Omura and the BDORT by means of incorrectly confusing it with Applied Kinesiology (AK) or 'Peak Muscle Resistance Testing' (PMRT) - which have a totally different basis and have almost nothing in common with the BDORT. The BDORT is mostly an electromagnetic resonance test utilizing basic principles of physics, physical chemistry, and the latest medical science. These individuals have selectively quoted, ignored and distorted the information from the citations that they quote on Wikipedia - which if followed and read in detail provide clear and unequivical information which refutes the claims made by these persons in the Wikipedia article.

The accusations are based on misrepresentations or misleading statements made by completely different people other than Dr Omura, including Dr. Richard Gorringe of New Zealand. When Dr Omura questioned Dr Gorringe about where he learned and how he performs the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test, it immediately became clear that Dr Gorringe had used some type of variation of a German doctor named Dr. Voll’s electro-diagnostic and therapeutic method that had very little to do with the Bi-Digital O-Ring Test (although both methods had been used in Germany and the U.S.).

Further, confirming the above, the Tribunal report concerning Dr Gorringe, page 58, paragraph 290, states the following:

‘’Dr. Gorringe gave evidence as to the background relating to PMRT (or BDORT) and attributed the origin of it to 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 practices is different from that practiced by Dr. Omura and therefore the Omura materials do not assist the Tribunal to any real extent.”

Because of this abuse, Wikipedia should not be used as an accurate source of information about the BDORT or Dr Omura.

The founder of Wikipedia, Jimbo Wales, is quoted as saying,

"While Wikipedia is useful for many things, he would like to make it known that he does not recommend it to college students for serious research."

A recent New York Times article (2008), New Scientist magazine (2009) and Nexus magazine articles1 & article2 (2008) explain this underlying wikipedia problem.

 

Additional statement in response to deliberate Wikipedia editors' misrepresentation of cited source documents

Dr. Omura’s patent on the Bi Digital O Ring Test (BDORT), US Patent 5,188,107 issued on February 23, 1993, was the result of a vigorous examination by the United States Patent and Trademark Office that ended in the grant of a patent. Dr. Omura’s patent application was originally filed in 1985. At the beginning, the Patent Office’s position was that the BDORT was not viable as a test - that it lacked utility. By overwhelming evidence in the form of affidavits by internationally respected physicians, dentists, and scientists, many of whom were professors in their own respective disciplines in the United States and Japan, the Patent Office was convinced of the utility of the BDORT and accordingly granted Dr. Omura a patent. These historic affidavits can be viewed and downloaded from this website.

Wikipedia’s description of the BDORT test is incorrect. Specifically, the findings of the Medical Practioner’s Tribunal of New Zealand in 2004 on the BDORT, as described in Wikipedia, discredits the BDORT without any research evidence. The affidavits accepted by the United States Patent Office contradicts the conclusions of the New Zealand Tribunal on the BDORT with the preponderance of evidence. It should be noted here that unlike the proof offered to prove the efficacy of BDORT by internationally respected physicians, dentists, and scientists, the Medical Practioner’s Tribunal of New Zealand offered no evidence for their conclusion but only a conclusion in the absence of evidence - the conclusions being statements by Professor Mark Bryden Cannell and Dr. John Charles Welch MD. From the conclusions of Professor Cannel and Dr. Welch, it is apparent that both the Professor and the Doctor never reviewed the then existing evidence on BDORT at the time they made their conclusions. It is interesting to note that Professor Cannel never published on BDORT and Dr. Welch appears to have never published on any medical topic but both served as expert witnesses with regard to BDORT.

Moreover, Tokai Television of Nogoya City, Japan in 1992 produced two 30 minute science documentaries that went into detail on the practice, procedure and research of the BDORT in the diagnosis of disease and was broadcast throughout Japan. This documentary was the culmination of 5 years of research. This documentary is still employed in the teaching of the BDORT. Many of those who submitted the aforementioned affidavits from Japan were in this 2 part documentary.