Talk:Neil Z. Miller

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents 1 Contested 2 Disputed 3 Article nominated for deletion 4 A question

[edit] Contested

Permission was given, so that is the main reason for deletion gone. Your wish to delete is more down to being pro-vaccine, I suspect, along with the deletion of two vaccine criticism pages egLily Loat, and the attempted deletion of 3 other vaccine critics Viera Scheibner, Charles Pearce, National Anti-Vaccination League. Neil Miller is the most notable author of vaccine criticism books in publication today, and consequently one of the premier researchers. Edit the text if you don't like it. john 19:24, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

If there is permission, that needs proof. And even if there is, the page needs fact-checking as it comes verbatim from a single partisan source, a personal website at that [1]. See Wikipedia:Reliable sources on the matter of using personal websites as primary sources.

The text seems to be, by the way, selective. It doesn't mention how he's also heavily into astrology [2] and "currently working on a new project to a) define the various layers of affective, cognitive and physical manifestations that occur when solar archetypes form critical junctures with human volition; and b) to establish the rudiments of a new living science substantiating a link between the Pythagorean concept of Divine Number, Platonic Ideals, and the Keplerian notion that celestial harmonies and perfect ratios unify God and humanity". [3]

Edit the text if you don't like it. Fine - but it's up to you also to show some commitment to WP:NPOV and Wikipedia:Verifiability when you produce text in first place. Tearlach 20:32, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I've incorporated Miller's interest in astrology into the article. Andrew73 23:03, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

I am glad you have put his interest in one of the oldest sciences, that suggests a spiritual mind to me. I suspect you put that in as you medical people think it is quackery, so an ad hominem ploy. john 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm just reporting what Miller emphasizes about himself! I guess it's your perception that this could be associated with quackery. Andrew73 18:42, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Only on reading the excellent Wiki page on a quackhunter outfit---"The Australian Skeptics dispute the veracity or scientific basis for the following phenomena or theories--Astrology" being one. So I was waiting for the attack from some HealthFraud editor, not yourself of course. john 23:15, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Just so. The article is about the man, not just the aspects of him relating to a particular work area. Isaac Newton was also interested in astrology. Tearlach 19:24, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Disputed

revealed correlations between the MMR vaccine and severe neurological injuries ... During the past decade, cases of autism have increased by more than 500 percent in countries that use thimerosal containing vaccines (TCVs) or MMR. Tearlach 00:39, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

And "...freedom to choose ... informed choice ... informed consent...". Bollocks. this may be the official line, but it's anti-vaccine advocacy; everything on the site - main books - is devoted to shrieking about the dangers of vaccines. I'd believe it stood for informed choice if it gave equal space to arguments for vaccination. Tearlach 03:44, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Have you stopped to consider vaccines ARE dangerous? [4] The truth is more important than equal space and Wiki is wall to wall pro-vaccine. You medical people are always deleting or attempting to delete vaccine critic pages if you can get away with it (witness this one, Viera Scheibner, Lily Loat, National Anti-Vaccination League, Vaccine critics, Charles Pearce), so the "equal space" speil is just an attempt to push your POV. john 16:46, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Of course vaccines can cause harm. No one is arguing that vaccines are completely safe. Andrew73 18:43, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Quite. Suppose we were talking about peanuts. You find a website saying it's devoted to helping people make an informed choice whether to eat them or not. It carries exhaustive research about fatal nut allergies, risk of choking, risk of breaking teeth, risk of heart attacks from high fat food, etc but nothing about the general context that they#re a popular and nutritious food that the great majority of people eat without harm. You'd conclude that the "informed choice" label was a front for an anti-peanut agenda.

But that's by-the-by. As Andrew73 says, no-one is arguing that vaccines aren't dangerous. All they're objecting to is adding anti-vaccination material in a biased manner: for instance, posting material from promotional pages without fact-checking. Tearlach 19:14, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me, the government and vaccine promoters always say vaccines are safe, without exception, and I collected those comments [5]. It is the biggest lie in medicine, and I am sure the allopaths will put you right on that. If you are editing a vaccine page such as this then I thought you would know more about the subject of vaccine politics. You can't compare food to medicine. But to amuse you I will say that everyone (that is 99.99% of people) knows vaccines are safe and effective, but no one knows they are actually unsafe and ineffective, so any site drawing attention to that fact is a peanut swimming upstream, so providing a NPOV is absurd, given the reality, but medical Wiki editors will attempt to do so, as you would expect. john 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of lies about medicine, are you next going to be writing about how governments/doctors invented HIV, cancer and anaphylaxis to rein in and prevent civilians from having sex, getting old and eating peanuts, respectively? --CDN99 12:45, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

Tearlach, you forgot to mention the conspiracy involved with peanuts and how big industry is involved in promoting peanuts, all to our detriment! Andrew73 19:19, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Peanuts, now how many people know they are a bean? I wonder how they would have sold as Peabeans? They are a bad food for adults to eat in any quantity if you read Dr kelley's cure for cancer--too much protein overloads the pancreas which is the main organ controlling cancer cells. john 23:10, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Article nominated for deletion

Shouldn't this be logged as an article nominated for speedy deletion, or do the speedy ones avoid that tag? john 09:28, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A question

Is there any material assertion in the article that is actually verified? It looks like a clean sweep. Midgley 23:26, 8 April 2006 (UTC)