(2018-03-31, 11:55 PM)Max_B Wrote: His paper is pretty much irrelevant on this issue, because it is written about procedure (2), so it only tells us about his general method for procedure (2). We already know he changed to procedure (2) only after he had seen the large size of the aneurysm. He tells us he changed procedure, and he only found out it's size, after he had already removed a piece of Pam's scull, because he tells us this.
The fact he changed procedures due to this new information, indicates he was using a different procedure prior to the change. That's what I call procedure (1). We don't know what the method for procedure (1) was.
We know that Pam was put into burst suppression, Spetzler says she was, and his paper on procedure (2) is further confirmation that this was his usual method for procedure (2). There is no credible reason to suspect she wasn't put into burst suppression.
What we don't know is when she was put into burst suppression... and we have no solid evidence to indicate when she was put into burst suppression...
That's always been the nub of the problem in Pam's case... and it remains the problem.
Max, this is just silly nonsense. We know exactly when she was under burst suppression. So do you.
![[-]](https://psiencequest.net/forums/images/collapse.png)