(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.
As I've told you several times, Max that is
not how Spetzler performed this operation. At Barrow, they sought burst suppression
early (as it states in the published paper)
before the opening of the skull.
1. Spetzler pioneered this operation technique.
2. Spetzler conducted this operation
3. Spetzler held the bone saw and clipped the aneurism
Many subsequent practitioners of this technique seek burst suppression later (after inspection of the problem). That was not the case at Barrow and that's a fact.
PS. By the time you've finished, Max I'll think I'll be nuts
(2018-04-02, 12:58 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]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.
Actually Tim I think you've done a good job in laying out the facts as received direct "from the horse's mouth".
I think you do yourself an injustice by suggesting that doubt has been cast by those 'throwing mud'. Most of it has ended up clinging to the thrower(s).
(2018-04-02, 01:49 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]At Barrow, they sought burst suppression early (as it states in the published paper) before the opening of the skull.
So I'm confused. This means that Max is accusing the published paper of being fraudulent?
(2018-04-02, 03:22 PM)Silence Wrote: [ -> ]So I'm confused. This means that Max is accusing the published paper of being fraudulent?
He's saying the published paper doesn't say what it clearly
does say. It's right here in plain English
"Our experience with profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest indicates that pre-arrest, precooling administration of barbiturates (thiopental) in quantities sufficient to maintain burst suppression of EEG activity has not been deleterious and probably has improved cerebral protection."
The key word here is
PRECOOLING (meaning
before she was hooked up to the by-pass machine). Pam clearly heard the cardiovascular surgeon, Camilla Mican, inform Spetzler that Pam's arteries were too small (on that side) to insert the catheter to initiate cooling.
So it tells us that barbiturates in quantities sufficient to maintain burst suppression of EEG activity had already been administered when Pam heard the conversation. And it's
literally impossible for anyone to be conscious in that state. And that's why sceptics refuse to listen to the truth.
I have more information on this case which is even more persuasive (if that's possible). Researcher Titus Rivas did sterling work in addition by 'interviewing' Dr Karl Greene (the assistant surgeon) who backed up these facts.
(2018-04-02, 04:12 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]That paper is used by Tim to show the standstill procedure promoted by Spetzler for dealing with large or hard to get to aneurysms. It shows that Spetzler promoted burst surpression throughout the surgery. It’s method is to connect up bypass to the patients groin, then induce burst suppression for the rest of the surgical procedure.
But Spetzler hadn’t decided what procedure to use on Pam. He opened up her skull and saw the size of the aneurysm, and then tells us he decided he would have to use the standstill procedure. Therefore it’s only after this descision that they connect up the bypass to Pams groin.
We can see the standstill procedure outlined In Spetzlers paper has not been followed. According to that paper it should be connect groin -> burst suppression-> open scull. But in Pams case it is open scull -> connect groin.
This is the wrong way round, but is completely understandable, because Spetzler tells us he only decided to use the standstill procedure after opening Pams scull and seeing the size of the Aneurysm. It seems Spetzler might have started Pams operation using a standard procedure, which for example, may only have induced burst suppression for the aneurysm clipping part of the operation. But upon seeing the size of the aneurysm, he decided a standstill procedure would be necessary, connected Pams groin for bypass and then induced burst suppression for the rest of the procedure, just like in Spetzlers standstill paper.
Although we know Pam would have been put into Burst Suppression during the procedure. At present no one here knows when during the procedure that was done. But we do have Spetzlers comments that say he opted for the standstill procedure only after seeing the size of the aneurysm. That suggests Pam may not have been induced into burst suppression until after her groin was connected up.
This changes nothing about the validity of Pams NDE OBE. But Tim is trying to muddy the waters prematurely, and using our knowledge that Pam was in burst suppression to imply that this means she was in burst suppression throughout the whole of her time in surgery. But Tim simply doesn’t know that. It’s attractive to him to try this, because people don’t have recollections like Pams under Burst Suppression. But he is overreaching himself here, and making claims when he doesn’t have hard evidence to back him up.
Disgraceful bullshit, Max. (again) You've excelled yourself !
(2018-04-02, 05:35 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I think I have, although in my defense it was not intentional... so I do owe you an apology Tim... Sorry. 
It is clear after rereading that paper again that I am getting the arterial lines muddled up with the femoral lines, and that you are quite correct, the femoral lines are only inserted after the scull has been opened and the aneurysm inspected. And that burst suppression is maintained throughout surgery.
This does seem to suggest to me that it is more likely that Pam was in burst suppression after all. I'm still unsure on this one though, I'd still want to see some hard evidence that this was the case during Pam's surgery.
I wonder why Spetzler never wrote this up as a short paper, if as you claim, he believes that Pam was definitely under burst suppression. Why on earth wouldn't he produce the recordings and notes to support the case? He seemed happy to go on TV and talk about it, and I can't believe Pam would have had any objections.
Max, thank you ! That's decent of you.
(2018-04-02, 05:35 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I think I have, although in my defense it was not intentional... so I do owe you an apology Tim... Sorry.
It is clear after rereading that paper again that I am getting the arterial lines muddled up with the femoral lines, and that you are quite correct, the femoral lines are only inserted after the scull has been opened and the aneurysm inspected. And that burst suppression is maintained throughout surgery.
This does seem to suggest to me that it is more likely that Pam was in burst suppression after all. I'm still unsure on this one though, I'd still want to see some hard evidence that this was the case during Pam's surgery.
I wonder why Spetzler never wrote this up as a short paper, if as you claim, he believes that Pam was definitely under burst suppression. Why on earth wouldn't he produce the recordings and notes to support the case? He seemed happy to go on TV and talk about it, and I can't believe Pam would have had any objections.
Wait, now I'm confused. You now admit that you were mistaken and that Tim is correct, right? Yet you immediately do an about-face and say that you need hard evidence. Of what?
Again, are you suggesting that Spetzler may have lied? Why would he? As I said above, this is not the kind of thing that medical professionals are in a hurry to be associated with. If he was "happy to go on TV" then surely that was a brave thing to do while expecting the inevitable backlash from a skeptical medical community. And doesn't Tim point out that his assistant, Dr Karl Greene, concurs?
(2018-04-02, 07:22 PM)Kamarling Wrote: [ -> ]Wait, now I'm confused. You now admit that you were mistaken and that Tim is correct, right? Yet you immediately do an about-face and say that you need hard evidence. Of what?
Again, are you suggesting that Spetzler may have lied? Why would he? As I said above, this is not the kind of thing that medical professionals are in a hurry to be associated with. If he was "happy to go on TV" then surely that was a brave thing to do while expecting the inevitable backlash from a skeptical medical community. And doesn't Tim point out that his assistant, Dr Karl Greene, concurs?
Yes, that's a fair point, Dave. Considering Max's apology I am happy to let it go now. She was in burst suppression when she heard the conversation, there's no doubt about it. Maybe Max will just make that step a bit later..or maybe not.
Just to add, the case was so remarkable that the medical profession descended on Barrow Institute to discuss it with Spetzler. Allan Hamilton told us this.
There has never been a satisfactory explanation for it. Gerry Woerlee only got involved because he knew the implications of it and has basically been telling downright lies for years.
(2018-04-02, 05:35 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Yep, I think I have, although in my defense it was not intentional... so I do owe you an apology Tim... Sorry.
It is clear after rereading that paper again that I am getting the arterial lines muddled up with the femoral lines, and that you are quite correct, the femoral lines are only inserted after the scull has been opened and the aneurysm inspected. And that burst suppression is maintained throughout surgery.
This does seem to suggest to me that it is more likely that Pam was in burst suppression after all. I'm still unsure on this one though, I'd still want to see some hard evidence that this was the case during Pam's surgery.
I wonder why Spetzler never wrote this up as a short paper, if as you claim, he believes that Pam was definitely under burst suppression. Why on earth wouldn't he produce the recordings and notes to support the case? He seemed happy to go on TV and talk about it, and I can't believe Pam would have had any objections.
Okay! That's the right attitude, Max.
I am happy that you are able to admit mistakes, something diehard skeptics never ever do (in my experience).
The reason why Spetzler never wrote this up in a short paper?
Let me guess: Most likely he would have become the laughing stock of his profession, certainly in the early days of his pioneering work.
Smithy