Psience Quest

(2018-03-30, 05:56 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]Hi, Hjortron

Keith Augustine's statements about the state of Pam Reynolds brain (when she heard the conversation and saw the bone saw) are completely wrong. At that time she was in a barbiturate coma with flat brain waves. The surgeons have told us this and it's all outlined and published in Rivas, Dirven and Smit's book, "The Self does not die." 

Keith is talking rubbish, that's all there is to it. I emailed him several years ago and told him this and his reply was...."I don't believe what doctors tell me." (Spetzler and Greene who conducted the operation).

He does, however believe Dr Woerlee's ideas about the case, who was not even there. Terrible behaviour.

Keith Augustine's judgement: "I don't believe what doctors tell me".... is terribly condescending to say the least. As if all doctors, in particular surgeons, are nothing but upgraded butchers with an IQ not higher 90.
As regards the Pam Reynolds case, my first question to Mr Augustine would be: were you there, Keith? Did you all the hard work as Spetzler and his team did? For example, did you monitor all the instruments? 
No, you did not, as Tim correctly points out regarding the equally arrogant opinions of dr Woerlee.
Then the only conclusion regarding Augustine's behavior: shut up!

(2018-04-01, 01:30 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I can't see why you would have bothered to contact Spetzler with your question, if you too hadn't accepted there was some ambiguity in Pam's case that you wanted him to clear up?

Anyway, I'm just repeating myself here, there is nothing really more I can add to what little evidence there is about Pam's actual state. We already know Pam's recollections took place way before she had the blood drained from her body. People can read up on Pam's case themselves, and they can come up with their own conclusions as to how certain they feel about whether Pam was/was-not in Burst Suppression during the periods of her recollection.

As for me, in the absence of any hard evidence, I think it's very likely that she wasn't in burst suppression during those periods. It's much more likely to me that she was put into burst suppression after her scull had been opened, and after the bypass was connected to her groin. That doesn't discount her OBE. It's just I'm not going to say she was in burst suppression, when I honestly don't know.

Max said > "I can't see why you would have bothered to contact Spetzler with your question, if you too hadn't accepted there was some ambiguity in Pam's case that you wanted him to clear up?

This is another example of the impossible nature of trying to deal with sceptics and awkward naysayers with 'agendas' of various kinds. Just think about what you've written there.

The reason why I contacted Dr Spetzler is because after years of sticking up videos of him informing us that Pam didn't have any brainwaves (when she heard that conversation), and then being told by sceptics that videos are worthless and that's all simply fluff for the TV cameras etc, I thought I'd try and finally nail it down by going to the only reliable source (not Keith Augustine)... The pioneer and conductor of the operation himself, Dr Robert Frederick Spetzler.

What can be better than that ? If you asked him the question, do you think you'd get a different answer ?

Are you not embarrassed by your absurd posts on this matter, Max ? If you're not, you ought to be.

(2018-04-01, 03:26 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Err... Some clarity as to when Pam was in Burst Suppression... Lol... together with some actual evidence.

Okay then, I'll approach Keith Augustine and Gerry Woerlee. They know better than Spetzler, of course. Nice one, Max.

(2018-04-01, 06:27 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It’s not a matter of who knows best. It’s a matter of having some hard data to show when she was put into burst suppression. Currently we don’t have that, it’s just completely unclear at present.

Max - can you please stop nagging!

(2018-04-01, 06:27 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]It’s not a matter of who knows best. It’s a matter of having some hard data to show when she was put into burst suppression. Currently we don’t have that, it’s just completely unclear at present.

I've given you the concrete facts from the 'horses mouth' multiple times, Max. Your behaviour is pathetic and childish. 

For some reason, you're pretending to be an imbecile with myopia. That's your choice, I can't stop you.

(2018-04-02, 12:45 AM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yeah, but we don’t know when Pam was put into burst suppression. And in the absence of any hard data (concrete facts?) there is good reason to suspect burst suppression was only induced after Spetzler had seen the aneurysm, as it was only at this point that he decided a standstill procedure was necessary.

Ps: we seem to have all the nutters out this Easter weekend.

Even if there were hard data, you know that the skeptics would still move the goalposts down the road somewhere (something about falsified / biased data acquisition, didn't take y measurement instead of x measurement, correlation doesn't equal causation, everything happened as the patient woke up instead of while the brain was 'dead', etc.)

It's all debunking, all the time. It's considered with the same sincerity as monsters in the closet.

And out of curiosity, if she were only burst suppressed for part of the procedure, as you claim is probable, how would that change the results of the NDE?

(2018-04-02, 02:40 AM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]And out of curiosity, if she were only burst suppressed for part of the procedure, as you claim is probable, how would that change the results of the NDE?

I assume the goal of the internet skeptic (although, I venture to suggest that Max has different motives) is to find and exploit a perceived weakness in order to discredit the whole experience and, if possible, the whole field. So those who want to challenge the skeptics might cite a case like Pam Reynolds and ask "how could she have reported a conversation that took place while her brain was effectively inactive?".

If the skeptic can, as Woerlee and Augustine attempt to do, show that the brain was actually active and capable of creating hallucinations and/or hearing conversations during the period that her brain was supposedly shut down, then they might believe they have discredited any claim of psi phenomena. 

For me, I prefer to look at the whole experience and apply a little common sense. 

1. How does the experience compare with those reported by others in similar situations? If similar then a consistency is apparent which would be unlikely in the case of crisis hallucinations.

2. How likely is it that Pam Reynolds could actually - rather than purely theoretically - hear a conversation while heavily sedated by anaesthetic drugs? While having hear ears plugged by specially moulded inserts which were then heavily taped thereby further blocking external sounds and while loud noises were constantly fed into her ears. Remember that she reported the conversation accurately but had no memory of those loud "clicks" being fed into her ears.

3. Whether or not burst suppression was active, nobody can determine what the burst waveforms indicate. It can't be determined by the wave shape and frequency whether the patient is viewing an Out of Body scene, listening to an ongoing conversation or any other subjective conscious experience. For all anyone knows, it might be random neurological electrical activity. Maybe it is like the automatic convulsing of dying muscles such as the twitching of feet. 

4. Even if skeptics can show that anaesthesia awareness with accurate memories is possible, it is probably very rare (see below). In Pam Reynolds' case, the precautions to prevent such awareness seem to have been comprehensive. And if we accept that there is still a remote statistical chance that all those precautions were ineffective, we still need to explain why her memories didn't include the inevitable pain and discomfort an "awake" brain would have encountered. Even the noises in her ears have been described as physically intolerable by those who have attempted a simulation.


Anaesthesia Awareness

Wikipedia Wrote:One study has indicated this phenomenon occurs in about 1 or 2 per 1000 patients or 0.13%. There is conflicting data however as another study suggested it is a rare phenomenon, with an incidence of 0.0068% after review of their data from a patient population of 211,842 patients.

Post operative interview by an anesthetist is common practice to elucidate if awareness occurred in the case. If awareness is reported a case review is immediately performed to identify machine, medication, or operator error.

Patients who experience full awareness with explicit recall may have suffered an enormous trauma. Some patients experience post traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), leading to long-lasting after-effects such as nightmares, night terrors, flashbacks, insomnia, and in some cases even suicide.

So, if Wikipedia is correct, we should expect a patient such as Pam Reynolds to be traumatised by her memories of being aware of what was taking place in the OR. Was Reynolds traumatised by her experience? I can find no evidence that she was and plenty that she found the experience pleasant and illuminating.

Therefore common sense tells me that Woerlee has dedicated himself to a debunking mission. I ask myself: even if Reynolds had some ulterior motive for sticking to her story, why would her doctors collude? Everyone knows that a medical or scientific professional who becomes associated with stories of paranormal phenomena risks the opprobrium of their colleagues and peers. Such an association can be and has been career limiting. Woerlee, on the other hand, has become a leading light among the "critical thinkers". His biased approach to the Reynolds case (and NDEs in general) is only to be expected from a man who is an outspoken atheist and considers the possibility of a soul as nothing more than a religious delusion. In his own words:

Gerald Woerlee Wrote:I have extensively discussed the paranormal in Mortal Minds and The Unholy Legacy of Abraham. These books clearly demonstrate the paranormal to be more than an ancient socio-cultural delusion, a wonderful delusion, but a delusion nonetheless. As such, the paranormal is also no indirect proof of the reality of religious belief systems.

All direct and indirect proofs of the reality of religious belief fail to prove the reality of any and all religious beliefs in a soul, a God, and an immaterial world inhabited by the dead. The only path forward is a world without a God, a world in which humans live in full knowledge of the reality of their being, and a world in which people strive to make the best of their lives and this world.

(2018-04-02, 05:00 AM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]I assume the goal of the internet skeptic (although, I venture to suggest that Max has different motives) is to find and exploit a perceived weakness in order to discredit the whole experience and, if possible, the whole field. So those who want to challenge the skeptics might cite a case like Pam Reynolds and ask "how could she have reported a conversation that took place while her brain was effectively inactive?".

If the skeptic can, as Woerlee and Augustine attempt to do, show that the brain was actually active and capable of creating hallucinations and/or hearing conversations during the period that her brain was supposedly shut down, then they might believe they have discredited any claim of psi phenomena. 

For me, I prefer to look at the whole experience and apply a little common sense. 

1. How does the experience compare with those reported by others in similar situations? If similar then a consistency is apparent which would be unlikely in the case of crisis hallucinations.

2. How likely is it that Pam Reynolds could actually - rather than purely theoretically - hear a conversation while heavily sedated by anaesthetic drugs? While having hear ears plugged by specially moulded inserts which were then heavily taped thereby further blocking external sounds and while loud noises were constantly fed into her ears. Remember that she reported the conversation accurately but had no memory of those loud "clicks" being fed into her ears.

3. Whether or not burst suppression was active, nobody can determine what the burst waveforms indicate. It can't be determined by the wave shape and frequency whether the patient is viewing an Out of Body scene, listening to an ongoing conversation or any other subjective conscious experience. For all anyone knows, it might be random neurological electrical activity. Maybe it is like the automatic convulsing of dying muscles such as the twitching of feet. 

4. Even if skeptics can show that anaesthesia awareness with accurate memories is possible, it is probably very rare (see below). In Pam Reynolds case, the precautions to prevent such awareness seem to have been comprehensive. And if we accept that there is still a remote statistical chance that all those precautions were ineffective, we still need to explain why her memories didn't include the inevitable pain and discomfort an "awake" brain would have encountered. Even the noises in her ears have been described as physically intolerable by those who have attempted a simulation.


Anaesthesia Awareness


So, if Wikipedia is correct, we should expect a patient such as Pam Reynolds to be traumatised by her memories of being aware of what was taking place in the OR. Was Reynolds traumatised by her experience? I can find no evidence that she was and plenty that she found the experience pleasant and illuminating.

Therefore common sense tells me that Woerlee has dedicated himself to a debunking mission. I ask myself: even if Reynolds had some ulterior motive for sticking to her story, why would her doctors collude? Everyone knows that a medical or scientific professional who becomes associated with stories of paranormal phenomena risks the opprobrium of their colleagues and peers. Such an association can be and has been career limiting. Woerlee, on the other hand, has become a leading light among the "critical thinkers". His biased approach to the Reynolds case (and NDEs in general) is only to be expected from a man who is an outspoken atheist and considers the possibility of a soul as nothing more than a religious delusion. In his own words:

I get what you are saying. So, regarding the Pam Reynolds case, or other cases where the patients can "see" things that they shouldn't, do these details really matter? Or do I misunderstand these cases, and this detail is actually important. Even if Pam's exact NDE were replicated with verified complete burst suppression (if it wasn't already), it just seems to me that the goalposts would be moved further down the line by any skeptics. 

It's already convincing to many that there's 'something' going on in these phenomena. To those not already convinced, what more evidence would there need to be, and is it realistic to obtain such evidence? If someone comes back from dying, they haven't actually died, and the skeptics could (and do) say by definition its not a death experience. Okay... so then how do you obtain something meaningful if it does exist from such experiences?

To summarize, it seems that additional data points such as this may (slightly) help those who already believe in the phenomenon of NDEs, but won't do much to help those who don't want to look into it.

(2018-04-02, 05:33 AM)darkcheese Wrote: [ -> ]To summarize, it seems that additional data points such as this may (slightly) help those who already believe in the phenomenon of NDEs, but won't do much to help those who don't want to look into it.

You mention two extremes of belief, (extreme sceptics are believers too!).
What about non-believers, those who simply ordinary people with no particular axe to grind?

There's a few interesting posts there and I understand where everyone is coming from.

However, the point about whether she was in burst suppression or wasn't ...isn't debateable, it's simply a fact. If anyone (except Max who's simply playing silly buggers)  wants to challenge this fact, please fire away with the questions and I'll deal with them.

I'm not an expert, I'm just a bloke from the UK but sometimes 'blokes' can discover interesting facts with a bit of poking about. That's what happened here. The case always was a perfect example of something paranormal. The only reason why there is any doubt about that, is because the people who don't like the obvious implications of it, have managed to cast doubt on it by 'throwing mud,' which is what they do.