Talk:John Lorber

message: 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)
thread_title: BSWA

message: 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)
thread_title: Member of the Nobel Prize Committee?

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Sceptics" conflate different definitions of the term "cerebral cortex". 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Potential sources 

message: 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)
thread_title:  The claim that an error had been made 

message: 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)
replies: text: It may be his opinions changed over time? LuckyLouie (talk) 22:39, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Would be great to find an obituary that does this career analysis for us. LuckyLouie (talk) 22:44, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources contradict each other