Talk:John Lorber

BSWA
The shameless plug from the BSWA is completely unneccasary on this article. It is a small stub hijacked by religous fanatics that use more of the article to talk about ajahn bram than lorber. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.34.227 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2008 (UTC) Dear 220.233.34.227: Your previous edit to the John Lorber article stated, "However, this case has since been debunked as it has been shown that the boy still had full brain matter, it was just flattened by the buildup of fluid in the brain caused by hydrocephalus." I would like to know where it has been debunked and where it is shown that the boy "still had full brain matter". Certainly, the links in the article do not refer to any material supporting your statement. The only discussion I could find by following those links is quite equivocal. Nowhere does it state or provide evidence for the claim that the boy's brain was of normal volume or mass. So, how do you justify your statement? Kipholbeck (talk) 17:14, 24 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I edited the sentence regarding BSWA in good faith, I did not consider it a plug, shameless or otherwise, and I am not a religious fanatic. Therefore, I resent your immoderate tone, which in itself is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines (e.g., on assuming good faith). PS: You misspelt unnecessary.Kipholbeck (talk) 00:36, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * The BSWA has nothing to do with lorber. I dont see how a misinterpretation of lorbers work is relevent to lorber. If that was the case, articles about everyone should be filled with everyone else comments on their work. Besides, the paragraph on Brahm makes him look retarded considering he was wrong. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.34.227 (talk) 04:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It does not make him looked "retarded". At most, it makes him look incorrect. I am certain you already know that encyclopaedias exist to describe the world impartially, rather than to present only that information a given observer considers correct. Kipholbeck (talk) 05:24, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * It makes you look retarded too. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.233.34.227 (talk) 05:30, 23 October 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll let it go for now, because it is not the end of the world either way, but your behaviour is unfair and contrary to the spirit of Wikipedia, because you did not properly justify your edits, included numerous personal insults, and vandalised the article on several occasions. Kipholbeck (talk) 05:43, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

The final part of this article was written by somebody with an axe to grind in order to smear this man. The statement "I have to be radical to get attention" has been replaced with his actual defense "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms". Also, the part calling his ideas radical has been taken out as that is an opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECCarb (talk • contribs) 18:47, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

The statement "Other neurophysiologists scoff at the possibility of a mathematics student having..." implies that Lorber is alone in his beliefs in this field of study, which is not the case. It should be replaced with a more neutral statement like: "Skeptics scoff at the possibility of a mathematics student having..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by ECCarb (talk • contribs) 19:06, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Member of the Nobel Prize Committee?
The Nobel Prize for Physiology or Medicine is awarded by an assembly of professors at the Karolinska institutet in Stockholm, Sweden. The Nobel Committee for this prize is the working body of this assembly and is selected from its members. See

http://www.nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/medicine/prize_awarder/

There is no evidence presented that John Lorber was a member of this committee. The other Nobel committtees are outside his field of expertise. I therefore delete the sentence that he was. Roufu (talk) 10:42, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"Sceptics" conflate different definitions of the term "cerebral cortex".
Some "sceptics" claim that the technology of the time the study was performed should not have been able to measure the thickness of the cerebral cortex accurately, by using the definition according to which the cerebral cortex is just a few millimeters thick. However, John Lorber's study explicitly defines the cerebral cortex as the entire cortical structure (not just the outermost layer) which is normally about two and a half centimeter thick. This means that it can patently not be explained away as a "measurement error". And the references to modern cases should be improved by including not only hydrocephalics, but anencephalic primordial dwarves as well, such as the young University Student Danny White. 37.250.170.127 (talk) 18:00, 24 July 2013 (UTC)Martin J Sallberg

Potential sources
Some potential sources to bring this article from the poorly sourced focus on the "no brain" issue. dont have time to incorporate them yet, but someone else can start if they wish.-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  18:34, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * ✅
 * ✅
 * ✅


 * Agree the "no brain" issue got some traction in fringe and conspiracy sources but doesn't appear to merit the kind of weight that appeared in earlier versions of this article. Does someone have access to medical journals from which an obit or other biographical data can be sourced? LuckyLouie (talk) 22:42, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

The claim that an error had been made
In the cited article, the statement "Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the scans themselves." is followed by "Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be tricky. He also has said that he would not make such a claim without evidence.  In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms.""

This is how it should appear in the wikipedia article. Instead, the second part of the paragraph has been placed elsewhere, so it appears as if the assertion that Lorber had made an error in interpreting the scans was left unanswered. If the assertion is to be placed in the article, then Lorber's defense should be there as well. This is how the full paragraph reads in the cited article:

"Of the last group, which comprised less than 10% of the study, half were profoundly retarded. The remaining half had IQs greater than 100.  Skeptics have claimed that it was an error of interpretation of the scans themselves.  Lorber himself admits that reading a CAT scan can be tricky.  He also has said that he would not make such a claim without evidence.  In answer to attacks that he has not precisely quantified the amount of brain tissue missing, he added, "I can't say whether the mathematics student has a brain weighing 50 grams or 150 grams, but it is clear that it is nowhere near the normal 1.5 kilograms."

http://flatrock.org.nz/topics/science/is_the_brain_really_necessary.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.26.63.100 (talk) 20:37, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Sources contradict each other
The NYT article places Lorber as always having a comfort care approach, while the other two books I found seem to say that he was, at least initially, an avid supporter of aggressive medical intervention. any suggestions on how to reconcile those differences? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:32, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * It may be his opinions changed over time? LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * That was my first thought, and that's what one of the sources says, but the NTY article places his early work in totally in the comfort care mode, too. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom  22:41, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Would be great to find an obituary that does this career analysis for us. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)