Talk:Patrick Flanagan

retitle page Neurophone and remove (auto)biographical content

There is no need to put another biography of this man on the Internet. The Neurophone device, and the other various snake oils sold by this man deserve to be described on Wikipedia in detail on separate pages. Agree (with earlier comment) that making a biography about Flanagan is wrong as a trenchant description of his commercial activities may constitute defamation. Additionally the page, in its current state, gives the man and his sock puppets an opportunity to use Wikipedia as a marketing tool. Suggest article about Neurophone, with what ever non-sales related media can be found on the device. Other spurious inventions by this person can be linked from a "Neurophone" article in a "see also" section. Note on due/undue weight: The stakeholders in the Neurophone device have made a sterling effort to populate every corner of the web with marketing materials on Flanagan's "health" and wellness products. A huge proportion of what can be found via a casual search for these products is marketing media. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 223.104.5.227 (talk) 01:09, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Untitled

None of the external links mention the doctorates and neither does the Guardian article about him from 2005. The Daily Mirror article refers to him as "the late Dr. Flanagan". So the doctorate claims appear dubious. AxelBoldt 19:28, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

As this has not been addressed 6 month later, I propose to begin the deletion of unsourced statements.DGG 03:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Take a look at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Patrick Flanagan. AxelBoldt's comments above are incorrect. -- ChrisO 08:25, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. I have seen his web site, which does not mention a doctorate except in medicine, but just advanced degrees in some of the fields. I've used the quote as a replacement. DGG 01:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Inadequate sourcing

The citations provided fail to meet WP:Verify. I suggest they be removed and replaced with reliable ones, as the sources cited are run by the subject of the article. -Interested2 21:45, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do not remove information and connections to the official U.S. patent office website , regarding the neurophone and electron field generator inventions . AS far as the rest of the info goes there is no suggestion of bias in any of the statements , claims are stated as such . Dispute over the scientific and health claims about the nutitional products is indicated without putting the arguments one way or the other . In any case , since when has the University of California , Berkley been an authority on the efficacy of nutritional supplements .Flumstead (talk) 12:08, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Categorization

Is there a reason why this page isn't in Category:Pseudoscience, or is that because it could be considered potentially libelous (or something)? DiamonDie (talk) 13:29, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

The reason it's not considered pseudoscience is because several of the inventions are officially recognised or are legitimate health products , see below . I agree that Pyramid Power is in the realm of pseudoscience , but there is another wikipedia page dedicated to that subject . It is simply mentioned in the context of Flanagan's life . Flanagan himself cannot be considered pseudoscientist . Flumstead (talk) 20:11, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Dr. Gael Crystal Flanagan (Patrick's wife) died in Oct. 1998 but Patrick is alive and well. I've also heard they were both nominated for a Nobel Prize for their scientific work. Please state the facts correctly.69.226.149.79 (talk) 18:43, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

It is perhaps not in the category in which it belongs because it is a biography not an article about the specific pseudo-scientific ideas of the subject of the article. It should be put into this category however, as the article is being edited by the subject of the article and is being used as a hagiography and a sales and marketing tool. The article needs several flags including a call for attention from a specialist who can properly disseminate on the scientific claims made throughout the article.116.231.76.241 (talk) 11:13, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

Dr. Flanagan's Neurophone isn't pseudoscience per se. It's a real, working interface between an electronic circuit resonating at audio frequencies and the human nervous system. Now, some of the cultist applications for the technology are pseudoscientific, but I feel that the Neurophone technology itself is both notable and grounded in biology (frequency-modulated signal transmission through the human nervous system) and electronics.

It is essential for us to find a secondary source attesting to the factual basis for the Neurophone. Dr. Jerry Pournelle (the science fiction and military technology author) has commented on the Neurophone in one of his science-fiction and fact anthologies. I'll work that part of the article, finding comment by Dr. Pournelle and others who are qualified to comment on the Neurophone as technology. The story of that invention is actually very interesting - for a while, the US National Security Agency supposedly classified it secret. That part of the story may or may not be WP:UNDUE - once I find a source for that, we can discuss it. I'm encouraged that we can reach a good consensus here on that, whatever we decide.loupgarous (talk) 22:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Official U.S. Patent Office connections .

Incase anybody removes the official U.S. patent office website connections for the Neurophone and Electron Field Generator , here are the links ; Neurophone patent no.3,393,279[1] , patent no.3,647,970[2] Electron Field Generator patent no.4,391,773[3] , patent no.4,743,275[4] Flumstead (talk) 20:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Silica Hydride .

Here are some links to published peer review papers by Flanagan about Silica Hydride [5][6][7] . I don't know about you , but this doesn't seem like pseudoscience . These papers also seem to invalidate the criticisms made in the University of California , Berkley wellness letter suggesting that negative hydrogen ions can't exist in water . This is real science which is being applied in pharmacology , biochemistry and industry . Flumstead (talk) 16:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

[8] has a pretty thorough debunking of these claims. Were Flanagan's claims remotely based in fact they would warrant massive media coverage and probably a Nobel prize, not two articles by persons without legitimate degrees in the Journal of Medicinal Food. -Interested2 (talk) 23:18, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Papers have been published in more than one journal , such as the 'International Journal of Hydrogen Energy' , and 'Free Radical Biology and Medicine'. It can take a long time for Nobel prizes to be awarded since it can a long time for the implications of a discovery to be realised , but i wouldn't be suprised if lots of stuff is going on behind the scenes that we're not aware of . If the media doesn't cover this sort of thing then it can hold these discoveries back . Anyway , thanks Interested2 for not deleting the info that i added . I hope we can have a rational discussion about these things . You do need to give a citation for calling Medicina Alternativa a 'degree mill'. Flumstead (talk) 10:32, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur that it needs a citation, unfortunately, I didn't originally add that. I'll try to find a citation in the mean time. -Interested2 (talk) 17:06, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Although it does need a cite, the official site [9] is pretty clearly not that of a legit academic institution. -Interested2 (talk) 17:12, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

True but isn't it enough to say he claims these qualifications . The 'Open International University for Complementary Medicines'[10] seems to be a pretty long established and recognised alternative medicine school . Plus i've added a link to the 'Time and Life ' picture archive website[11] which proves he did appear in the magazine .Flumstead (talk) 20:44, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

The insideous thing about Flanigan is he does sometimes build his fraud alongside existing science.

70.209.108.133 (talk) 18:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Do yo have ANY references detailing this alleged fraud????? Flumstead (talk) 17:42, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

The FDA have issued the following warning letter to Flanagan, who has removed any and all references to Silica Hydride from his web site and product labels. [12] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter raines (talk • contribs) 01:51, 21 June 2019 (UTC)

The Neurophone

I got linked to this page about Patrick Flanagan when I searched for Neurophone. Can you please make a separate page for the neurophone, which is a device and not a man. There is a lot of people in the world using the neurophone. Wikipedia should have an article about how the device works, and about what effects it has on the brain. --Zanthius (talk) 13:07, 19 December 2008 (UTC)

It seems unnecessary as all the relevant info can be found at the neurophone website.Flumstead (talk) 20:33, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Have seen a few people posting on social media regarding neurophones - issue is still alive and kicking, yet wikipedia still has no info on it. Shall we start digging? My initial thought is to buy one and open it up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 116.231.76.241 (talk) 07:50, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Delete this article

Just delete the page. Clearly it's more of a vendetta then a biography. There's nothing "pseudo" about his inventions, they are patented inventions -- period. There's nothing "pseudo" about silica hydride, it's used by top athletes (who claim it) for superior performance and there are validated scientific studies proving the voracity of the "claims". Scientists arguing is nothing new. It's like arguing if Linus Pauling deserved the Nobel prize(s). Many claim no special benefits from vitamin C either.

Just tell the man's story without all the "claim" and "pseudo" and "woo-woo" references and let people decide for themselves. This is why Wikipedia gets a bad name, people can't keep from opinionizing these articles.

To the person above who implies that Linus Pauling won the Nobel Prize for scientific work he had done with Vitamin C . . . give me a break. Fantasy is not fact.

In 1954, Pauling was awarded the Nobel Laureate in Chemistry for his research into the nature of the chemical bond and its application to the elucidation of the structure of complex substances. His theory on Vitamin C came after his Nobel Prize and mainly received publicity due to the fact that he was a Nobel Prize winner. 1962 he won Nobel Peace Prize Laureate which again has nothing to do with Vitamin C. Astroboyretro (talk) 06:27, 16 January 2009 (UTC)

Sir NPOV doesn't mean tell a story with out exploring it. It means Describing reality with as little bias as possible. Next what you've described there is practically the definition of pseudo science. Look up How the patent system works, confirmation bias, and anecdotal evidence. The fact is that the article covers some pseudoscience and it should be marked as such.

Along that line I've removed links to his own website used to cite his accomplishments. Phisciences.com has a clear bias and frankly is a lousy source.Donhoraldo (talk) 23:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Just enough to keep - but readers will see his "immortality" claim for what it is. Needs other non-RS stuff deleted, but I am not that cruel today <g>. Collect (talk) 22:07, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Gael Flanagan nee Gordon

Does anyone have any suitably sourced material to add concerning Patrick's late wife, Gael Flanagan nee Gordon? Perhaps someone living locally might be able to get access to the coroner's report? Peter raines (talk) 09:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

The following links may be of interest:

• In Memorium James Roderick, HAARP Researcher
• Earthpulse Press
• FREEDOM - Trumpets and Horns — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peter raines (talk • contribs) 21:06, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Explanation of COI tag

I added a WP:COI tag because a major contributor, User:ForestDog, is a blocked sockpuppet who has been linked to another account that appears to be doing paid promotional editing as evidenced here WP:Sockpuppet investigations/CastleKing1440/Archive. Earlier versions of this article were rather promotional in tone. Logical Cowboy (talk) 05:59, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

deletion notification

I'm notifying creators and early contributors of the proposed deletion of this article. The most notable thing about this BLP is his commercial product "the Neo-Neurophone", which is being marketed widely online. It can't really be called an invention on his BLP as there are no RS that say what it actually is. There are lots of marketing sources which make the usual wide reaching CAM medical claims, but those are not wp:RS. I strongly suggest rewriting this as an article on the neurophone and depreciating biographical information about Flanagan into a short section in the article. I would also consider taking the information from the subject and merging it into the relevant fields of pyramids and the articles on CAM, which the subject of this article promotes on his online businessesEdaham (talk) 03:04, 22 March 2017 (UTC)

having posted the deletion notice I can see that it's been previously nominated. Apologies if this re-proposal is unhelpful in anyway. Please consider the policies on commercial articles when improving it. Edaham (talk) 03:20, 22 March 2017 (UTC)