User talk:NielsMayer

Unblock request
{unblock| I will attempt to abide by the rules posted on my talk page. However, this is not a "run of the mill" issue. The current morgellons page is libellous and I consider it "hate speech." Do the rules still apply to these issues? Are we to stay "on the back of the bus" even though our civil rights are being violated?

Is libel appropriate for wikipedia, because that's exactly what is going on with the "morgellons" page?? Morgellons sufferers are not delusional, they have an infection. Continuously equating DOP with Morgellons does not make it true. The fact that there are some medical opinions that Morgellons is DOP doesn't make it true either. The fact that the controversy isn't even framed correctly suggests to the naive reader that all morgellons patients are nutcases and their symptoms should not be believed or investigated. That further makes this wikipedia page a source for libelous "hate speech." It is a sad fact that margellons, Michael Devine, of Morgellonswatch.com is User:Herd of Swine, constantly reverting the site back towards the defamation and libel they attempt at MorgellonsWatch.com.

Why must wikipedia become a target for their screed, when they have Morgellonswatch to express that viewpoint?

This isn't just an esoteric academic debate on an abstract subject. the wikipedia page promotes an unbalanced (esp if you start with the introduction) view of "Morgellons" as a psychiatric disorder, even though there is strong evidence of a physical and infective etiology. Just the fact that there are two independent university research groups who are finding consistent evidence of (1) never-seen-before material emerging from lesions of patients whose samples were collected in a clinical setting; (2) agrobacterium; (3) Lyme disease; (4) Chlamidia Pneumoniae; (5) immune deficiency. Although most of the aforementioned can produce profound psychiatric distress, it would be completely inappropriate to chemically lobotomize a patient, while not treating their underlying illness. That is the climate of medical prejudice faced by patients today; furthermore, there's the possibility of fomenting general discrimination in society against Morgellons sufferers as "crazy" rather than "ill."

And that is exactly the kind of civil rights violation against morgellons patients that the existing Morgellons wikipedia article entails. It is hate speech pure and simple. You could just as well have a page that equates people-of-color with being lazy... backed by numerous articles and opinions on the internet backing up that very opinion. And you could discuss this issue at length even... but it would be very inappropriate for wikipedia. Just because an opinion exists, even by a professional, doesn't make it true -- "blacks are stupid... Nobel prize winner Shockley, inventor of the transistor, said it was true, so it must be!" --  Netsnipe  ►  18:53, 23 June 2007 (UTC)}}

.... -- User talk:75.83.171.237 20:52, 24 August 2007 (UTC) Arbitration Committee banned Ilena and SSP banned User:Scrotel both have used the 75.83.171.237 IP address. See usertalk. -- Jreferee    t / c  17:37, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Regarding the previous unblock request:

User:Netsnipe said: "I've also noted your personal attacks towards other editors at Talk:Morgellons." --- please provide me an example. There are no personal attacks on the talk page. You appear to be confused, or perhaps you're partial to the DOP-pushers.

Also, to correct another mistatement -- the subject is known to the general public as "Unexplained Dermopathy (aka "Morgellons")" according to http://www.cdc.gov/unexplaineddermopathy/

Again, why is there a Wiki on "Morgellons" when the CDC has chosen a different name?

My action was correct. The trash that is the "Morgellons" page should turn into a page titled "persecution of patients with unexplained dermopathy" and a new page on "unexplained dermopathy" (crosslinked to morgellons) needs to be created.

I'm not sure how such an opinion can be put forward with a blocked account. But apparently, that is the intent in the first place -- to silence dissent and allow a human rights violation to continue unchecked. NielsMayer 20:33, 24 June 2007 (UTC)}