(2017-12-11, 08:05 PM)Pssst Wrote: [ -> ]Timmy: Why No Psst, I did not!!! Do you think or know this? If you think it, then I will simply skip the post and check it off to "wild, unabashed fringe speculation". If you know it, then best be able to provide evidence or in them here parts, people will label you as "fringe whacko".
FW Pssst: OK, OK, "Timmy" it's good to see you have such a keen interest in this subject. 
Let me provide examples from Eben A.
"We know a tremendous amount about the brain and its workings, including the evidence that it is not the producer of consciousness at all." Check.
"In his 1975 book Mystery of the Mind, he made it very clear that the brain does not explain the mind, thus is not the producer of consciousness itself, nor is it the harbor of “free will,” or even the repository of memory storage." Check, memory does not exist.
"our mind is intimately involved not only with perceiving the world around us, but also in generating the emerging reality." Check. Higher Mind conceives, physical brain receives, physical mind perceives.
"that consciousness is fundamental in the universe, and that all else, including the observable physical universe, emerges from consciousness." Check.
"I believe that fundamentally the universe exists so that sentient beings can learn and teach in this “soul school,” the sum result of which is the evolution of consciousness itself." Check. Physical reality is not real only the experiences are.
"The veil is part of the “programmed forgetting,” an intentional loss of memories from past lives and between lives that gives us “skin in the game.”" Check. We are attending a Master level class in limitation.
"That is the emotional buy-in to our status as “individual souls” to live our lives to the fullest." Check. Know thyself. Be thyself. Our entire mission in physical reality is to exist.
Timmy: Gosh, Pssst, I'm off to seek out the knowledge of the extraterrestrials, who needs a neurosurgeon?
P: heh
Psssty, I don't dislike you (even though you seem completely crackers to me) but from my perspective, some things are
best left un-discussed ....things like claiming to have a personal relationship with extra-terrestrials etc. Am I being unreasonable ? As for Eben Alexander, he does indeed believe that the universe is teeming with life, it probably is but that is different from claiming (as you do) all sorts of knowledge and expertise about it.
A short while back you said you were not going to respond to my posts anymore (but I never asked or expected you to) and you also said your "goodbyes" to the forum forever and then reappeared a few days later...which is fine, if a little perplexing.
Having said all that, (as I've said before) it takes all sorts to make a forum so good luck with whatever grabs you.
(2017-12-12, 03:49 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Psssty, I don't dislike you (even though you seem completely crackers to me) but from my perspective, some things are
best left un-discussed ....things like claiming to have a personal relationship with extra-terrestrials etc. Am I being unreasonable ?
Not if that is what you believe, it would be unreasonable for you to think otherwise. For me, it is as reasonable as coffee and doughnuts.
If you mean is it unreasonable to talk about your personal relationship to ETs, that's up to you. I have found that those topics that I might have considered non-discussable was due to a fear that I did not wish to expose. That worked out really, really good for me.
Signed,
Completely Crackers
(2017-12-12, 03:49 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]A short while back you said you were not going to respond to my posts anymore (but I never asked or expected you to)...
Initially I responded to
my own post.
Things change - Fifth Law.
Larry King interviewing Dr Eben Alexander recently. At 10.16, King brings up the "Esquire" character assassination (attempted) of the neurosurgeon's record. Alexander clears this up and also explains that in neurosurgery, a claim for malpractice on average every five years is about the normal rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0mpkjAx_f0
(2018-04-22, 02:45 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Larry King interviewing Dr Eben Alexander recently. At 10.16, King brings up the "Esquire" character assassination (attempted) of the neurosurgeon's record. Alexander clears this up and also explains that in neurosurgery, a claim for malpractice on average every five years is about the normal rate.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n0mpkjAx_f0
H tim
Claim is one thing but Alexander was sanctioned professionally. FWIW I think it’s irrelevant to his testimony.
(2018-04-22, 05:01 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]H tim
Claim is one thing but Alexander was sanctioned professionally. FWIW I think it’s irrelevant to his testimony.
Hi, Obiwan
We've been here before but can you be more specific. Are you in possession of information which I'm not ? Alexander says he was cleared to continue practicing. What sanction was maintained against him ? As I understand it he was the subject of a malpractice suit (as all neurosurgeons are apparently) ...is that the sanction you're referring to ?
(2018-04-22, 07:57 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, Obiwan
We've been here before but can you be more specific. Are you in possession of information which I'm not ? Alexander says he was cleared to continue practicing. What sanction was maintained against him ? As I understand it he was the subject of a malpractice suit (as all neurosurgeons are apparently) ...is that the sanction you're referring to ?
He was fined. I’ll try to find the reference. I’ve posted it before but perhaps not on here. He definitely wasn’t prohibited from practicing. I haven’t seen any record of criminal proceedings or a civil action.
Page 16 here...
http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf
Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA 03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery.
misconduct
noun
mɪsˈkɒndʌkt/
- 1.
unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or professional person.
(2018-04-22, 08:14 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]He was fined. I’ll try to find the reference. I’ve posted it before but perhaps not on here. He definitely wasn’t prohibited from practicing. I haven’t seen any record of criminal proceedings or a civil action.
Page 16 here... http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf
Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA 03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery.
misconduct
noun
mɪsˈkɒndʌkt/
- 1.
unacceptable or improper behaviour, especially by an employee or professional person.
Yes, I remember that quite well. Alexander himself accounted for this. He says the patients were informed. From the IANDS article.
https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in...facts.html
And what of the other allegations insinuated or levelled at Eben Alexander? He deserves to have his side of these cases heard as well. Dr. Alexander’s 25-year neurosurgical career included over 4,000 surgeries. Luke Dittrich does not have a good track record with the truth with respect to Eben Alexander: one cannot trust Dittrich's portrayal of the facts.
The most serious of the cases Dittrich cites, that Dr. Alexander altered medical records in a case of wrong-level spine surgery, similarly distorts the truth, according to Dr. Alexander. The patient in question had excellent relief of his symptoms after Dr. Alexander's surgery, delaying Alexander’s discovery that surgery had been performed at an unintended level. Dr. Alexander corrected the record to reflect the newly learned facts of the case, and disclosed the surgical error to all parties after follow up revealed a genuine surgical benefit. After full investigation by three state medical boards and the American Board of Neurological Surgeons, Dr. Alexander continued to practice medicine without restriction, with his board certification intact.
So I guess it's who do you believe. He was fined but was that a serious blemish on his career ? You say yes, I say no. Everyone will decide for themselves.
The correct answer is No.
(2018-04-22, 08:37 PM)7I8tim Wrote: [ -> ]Yes, I remember that quite well. Alexander himself accounted for this. He says the patients were informed. From the IANDS article. https://iands.org/ndes/more-info/ndes-in...facts.html
And what of the other allegations insinuated or levelled at Eben Alexander? He deserves to have his side of these cases heard as well. Dr. Alexander’s 25-year neurosurgical career included over 4,000 surgeries. Luke Dittrich does not have a good track record with the truth with respect to Eben Alexander: one cannot trust Dittrich's portrayal of the facts.
The most serious of the cases Dittrich cites, that Dr. Alexander altered medical records in a case of wrong-level spine surgery, similarly distorts the truth, according to Dr. Alexander. The patient in question had excellent relief of his symptoms after Dr. Alexander's surgery, delaying Alexander’s discovery that surgery had been performed at an unintended level. Dr. Alexander corrected the record to reflect the newly learned facts of the case, and disclosed the surgical error to all parties after follow up revealed a genuine surgical benefit. After full investigation by three state medical boards and the American Board of Neurological Surgeons, Dr. Alexander continued to practice medicine without restriction, with his board certification intact.
So I guess it's who do you believe. He was fined but was that a serious blemish on his career ? You say yes, I say no. Everyone will decide for themselves.
I don’t say it’s a
serious blemish. But I think it’s hard to say it isn’t a blemish. He’d have had his say at the disciplinary panel of course. If they heard his explanation they clearly didn’t accept it or it wasn’t sufficient to excuse his actions. That said, the penalty looks to be at the light end of what they could probably have imposed and must reflect their view of the seriousness of it, ie pretty minor.
The question is perhaps what relevance does it have to his book? I think that’s probably a subjective judgement. My own subjective view is that it has no relevance.