(2018-04-04, 05:46 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]I'm forced to remain skeptical of such stories... otherwise you may as well just accept any old third party thing... where does it stop? Some trained medics are already deliberately provocative too... like Lorber, who had his party piece story about whether a brain was even necessary, but again, he never actually wrote up the case.
But what you are say is also silly and provocative. There can't be three stories if Pam was one of them? Because the periods of recollection from her OBE certainly didn't happen when her brain was "dead"?
Also by definition, people who recover could not have had a dead brain, otherwise they would not of recovered. I mean people really have to accept that a non-functioning brain, does not imply that the cells that make up the brain have died or completely stopped functioning. Cooling, chemicals, CPR can all extend the ability of the cells to survive a period of energy starvation.
Max said > "But what you are say (ing) is also silly and provocative."
Silly and provocative ? Firstly, Max, it wasn't me who said it, it was Dr Allan Hamilton. He amalgamated the cases of three patients for his memoirs, he said so publicly and he also told me that privately and I have the emails which I am happy to hand over to Laird/ Ian/ Doug so that they can see them. I can't publish the emails because Hamilton might sue me.
I thought you knew about this, obviously you don't. As for being provocative, I can well imagine it is for the likes of yourself and your theory. Nevertheless, it's a fact unless Hamilton is lying and I don't think that is very likely. He is the chair of one of the largest neurosurgical programmes in the world and is not likely to be telling tall stories.
Page 203 The Scalpel and the soul.
"To satisfy myself, I took a copy of the EEG and showed it to two more colleagues in neurology who routinely read EEG printouts for a living......Both of them assured me that the EEG was uniqivocal :
The patient's brain was dead."
From Michael Tymn :
https://www.sott.net/article/152171-Back-from-the-Dead
Addendum (added March 28): After posting this entry several days ago, I attempted contact with Dr. Hamilton in hopes of obtaining more information on the "Sarah Gideon" case. I just heard from Dr. Hamilton and he explained that some of the stories in the book, including this one, are amalgams, or blended stories. I had suspected that the names were pseudonyms for privacy reasons and recalled Dr. Hamilton mentioning this in the Introduction. However, I had overlooked the fact that he also mentioned that some of the stories are amalgams. It appears that the "Pam Reynolds" case is part of the amalgam. I infer from Dr. Hamilton's comments that there is a case or two that actually "plugs the holes" in the Pam Reynolds case, but for patient privacy reasons the name(s) cannot be given.
Are you going to tell us that Hamilton doesn't know what he's talking about, Max ?
NB. The hole Tymn is referring to has now been plugged anyway.
(2018-04-04, 07:16 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]Definitely sounds like it if the patient recovered.. Ha!
Max, brain dead is how the medical profession
can refer to patients with no brain activity. I have several quotes from various surgeons and doctors which refer to 'brain dead' and yet the patient recovered.
So, is what I wrote still provocative and silly ? Do you now accept what I said was correct or are you going to try and avoid it ?
Maybe sometimes people confuse scepticism with the need to see somethings for themselves, no matter how good the witnesses are. Kinda exceeded the boggle threshold.
. If that’s the case, I’d rather they just said that.
(2018-04-04, 09:32 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]What by just looking at an EEG recording... lol... they should be struck off!
So you're saying that Allan Hamilton doesn't know what he's talking about ?
Why can't the truth be allowed to be said just because you don't like it ?
BTW. Ernst Rodin told me that EEG is the best way of assessing brain activity. He should know, he pioneered it.
I don't want to keep quoting famous names as if that rubs off on me, it doesn't. But I wanted to know the 'answers' to some of these questions and the internet with emails made it/them accessible.
(2018-04-04, 09:42 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]You're just being silly and provocative to say somebodies brain is dead, who recovers... that they have recovered, just shows the description of the patients brain was inaccurate... shit happens.
They're not my words, you're behaving like an idiot ! Take it up with Allan Hamilton, for goodness sake.
(From Michael Tymns link)
"Hamilton says there was no question that Gideon was brain dead at the time the conversation took place. "...we also had here unequivocal, scientific evidence that not only was her brain not working, it specifically demonstrated the absence of all cortical electrical activity when these conversations actually took place,"
This is indeed a bit confusing until you delve into it. He couldn't recount three separate stories on the same theme, so he amalgamated them. It doesn't mean, as the sceptics like to believe, that there weren't
really three patients that experienced this phenomenon. There
were three, one wasn't an aneurism but they all heard and saw things when their brains were dead, meaning totally non functioning.
You've been told this numerous times but you don't like it, so you pretend to be outraged about an 'absurd claim.' Thing is, it isn't a claim anymore, these things happen so you would be well advised to come to terms with it, as painful as that might be for you, Max.
(2018-04-04, 09:53 PM)tim Wrote: [ -> ]They're not my words, you're behaving like an idiot ! Take it up with Allan Hamilton, for goodness sake.
Hamilton says there was no question that Gideon was brain dead at the time the conversation took place. "...we also had here unequivocal, scientific evidence that not only was her brain not working, it specifically demonstrated the absence of all cortical electrical activity when these conversations actually took place,"
You know you’re wasting your time right? Lol
(2018-04-04, 10:39 PM)Obiwan Wrote: [ -> ]You know you’re wasting your time right? Lol
I know, you're right, Obiwan.
[Image: wink.png]
(2018-04-04, 11:43 PM)Max_B Wrote: [ -> ]And I can just guess, your gonna tell me that later he wasn't...? 
He ? No, two of the cases definitely weren't men, the other one might have been, I don't know. Pam Reynolds was one and the other was a religious minded woman. She was the one who heard a very detailed conversation about an engagement ring and where it was purchased and more. She
was unfortunately killed in a car crash. (He told me this)
I wondered if Hamilton had made this conversation up as a 'decoration'... so that's why I emailed him to ask him. Apparently no, it wasn't made up, this was a real patient and there
was a conversation about a nurse's forthcoming engagement. LOL
Since the case is an amalgam, as you rightly point out, I personally hold that we should simply ignore it, Tim. See:
Book Review
There are plenty of strong, reliable cases (as you know, Chapter 3 of
The Self Does Not Die is dedicated to them) and we don't need cases like that of Sarah Gideon.
Also, because Hamilton has turned out to be a rather unreliable author, it makes little sense to quote him on any case, in my opinion.
I'm not saying his intentions were fraudulent in the usual sense, but still, this is not what any serious author should do.
If he wishes to present real cases rather than amalgams next time, he'd better make sure he has all the documentation to back up his claims.
And I personally would not give him much priority, even if I gave him a new chance.
Authors like Hamilton do the field a great disservice through their shenanigans, even if their intentions are actually positive. We don't need to defend their work against the debunkers.
Titus