Since this thread is becoming a hybrid of a general issue and a specific case where I am concerned, perhaps I may be excused for adding to the discussion. I had rather seen others intervene on some of these points, since I am obviously not a neutral party here and because I had asked for some coaching: I consider it good practise to acknowledge and accept feedback, without necessarily replying. However, I believe a few issues need addressing.
First, I would like to refer to the the code of conduct and the objective of creating a welcoming environment. Several of the commenters here have made an explicit point of doing so, which is much appreciated. We are all trying to make what we perceive as useful contributions to this community, be it through posts or through moderation. Nevertheless, inclusiveness extends to terms that feel personal even when they're applied to content. Using derogatory terms about someone's references inevitably reflects on the person that has invoked those references, and is not likely to lead to a serene discussion. It is probably not helpful to recap all the pejorative terms employed in this thread, but I do feel compelled to draw a line at the use of the word ‘fraud’.
I find it deeply unsettling and regrettable to see how lightly this term is employed, echoed and amplified as there is almost no defense possible against such an allegation; the damage is done the moment the word is written down, irrespective of whether it reflects any truth. Despite the laudable intent of the OP to generalize and tone down this thread, the term now seems to come back full swing as a central argument of why a certain reference should be avoided. My plea would be to refrain from such language altogether; this is simply not the right forum to discuss whether raising private capital for a high-risk venture is morally sound.
It would seem more appropriate here to put business issues aside, and focus on scientific aspects instead. In the specific case of Mills, his theory is unquestionably unconventional. Perhaps it is useful to clarify, however, that the author is a Harvard MD who has produced over a hundred peer-reviewed articles, many of them with co-authors. And yes, he has published in Nature, but on an unrelated subject. Most scientists ignore Mills, some are outright dismissive, but others are supportive. To cite (link to a zip file) just one : “To be able to solve a two-electron atom/ion using Dr. Mills’ Classical Physics is truly an amazing feat.” (Randy Booker, professor of physics at UNC Asheville). If I mention this, it is not to spark a debate about the merits of the theory, but simply to provide some counterbalance to the predominantly negative preceding narrative.
It is of course a valid question to what extent the community should encourage (or at least tolerate) diversity of thought; I can see the value of being somewhat conservative on this point. At the same time, especially in chemistry, there are often multiple ways of gaining understanding or going about approximate calculations. Banning or flagging any one author or method in particular, strikes me as awkward and unnecessary in many ways.
As a practical way forward, it would seem to me (in line with an earlier opinion) that the forum has the tools that allow positive, as well as critical, engagement with individual posts containing some degree of unconventional thinking, if and when they arise. On the part that I can oversee, this is hardly a large phenomenon today, and, on a personal level, I don’t see my contributions in this space growing exponentially. On the contrary, I expect them to be asymptotical since I only have a fairly narrow area where I believe my insights can make a meaningful contribution.
As to the specific answer discussed above: I’m afraid I don’t agree that the question is flawed or that unsound science is somehow being perpetuated, but I genuinely look forward to posts by others offering different insights and would appreciate seeing my answer undeleted alongside them.
