Dr Eben Alexander's new book

Read the comments from the doctor that treated him.

I only read the full article for the first time last night and it doesn’t read like a hatchet job to me. However, I’m consciously, and constantly, trying to fight my bias in this case; I just don’t like the look of him

Well that is amusing, Malf in both ways.

Apart from making lots of money out of it, Dave (which I don't care for) how should Alexander have brought this to the attention of the world ?

Interesting for me tim.  I'd like to think that if I had experienced what he did, as a neurosurgeon, I might have thought carefully how to bring this to the world's attention.  A brief scan of literature would have painted a pretty clear picture for him that mainstream science and journalism see NDE's as woo.  I'd further like to think I would have been so affected by the events that the notion of enhanced material wealth beyond that of a neurosurgeon would have been of much less importance that convincing people of the new truth I had found.

Finally, I like to think I would have donated all material wealth generated from my story telling to others, to charities, to the greater good.  Keeping it would have felt to me like leaving my story open to the types of "attacks" like you see the article to be.

Edit : The case was so remarkable, we needed to hear about it. I know a bit more than most only because I contacted Alexander in 2009 I think it was and he very kindly wrote me the details and explained why his case was so interesting. He's not a friend of mine, nor even an acquaintance but he was kind and approachable. I sent him some books as a thank you.

I'm fed up with (not you or Obiwan) people attacking him to be honest.

Clearly tim, you are biased favorably towards Eben if for no other reason than his kindness to you in fielding your inquiry and interacting.  Nothing wrong about that at all.  But you have to see that your interactions with him differentiate you from all of us who've had none.  Right?

His wiki page says he had to settle 5 malpractice suits in Virginia in 10 years. That may be routine for the US I guess..?

Good question and I have no idea.  Quick google search:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practic...uit-survey

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doc...4e37033d00

The second article would put Eben in pretty (negatively) rare light.  However, its hard to tell if his specialty (neurosurgery) is being fairly compared as it seems to overindex compared to non-surgeons and even most surgical specialties.

Who knows?

Interesting for me tim.  I'd like to think that if I had experienced what he did, as a neurosurgeon, I might have thought carefully how to bring this to the world's attention.  A brief scan of literature would have painted a pretty clear picture for him that mainstream science and journalism see NDE's as woo.  I'd further like to think I would have been so affected by the events that the notion of enhanced material wealth beyond that of a neurosurgeon would have been of much less importance that convincing people of the new truth I had found.

Finally, I like to think I would have donated all material wealth generated from my story telling to others, to charities, to the greater good.  Keeping it would have felt to me like leaving my story open to the types of "attacks" like you see the article to be.

Clearly tim, you are biased favorably towards Eben if for no other reason than his kindness to you in fielding your inquiry and interacting.  Nothing wrong about that at all.  But you have to see that your interactions with him differentiate you from all of us who've had none.  Right?

Firstly, I don't think I am biased. I agree with part of the first part of your post. We don't know how much he has or hasn't given away to charity. I would sincerely hope he has been generous with his royalties but why should he have to reveal that ?
If he has donated to charities and he hasn't told us, that's the ideal. 

If he hasn't... but is to donate and he tells us about it, what benefit is that to his character ? Singing his own praises ? What amount should he give away ? 10% 20% 50% all of it ?

What kind of newspaper cynical hatchet job would follow that, I wonder. Breaking news Proof of heaven neurosurgeon ONLY gives one measly million of his 5 million fortune !  

There's no easy solution, I'm afraid.

Good question and I have no idea.  Quick google search:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practic...uit-survey

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doc...4e37033d00

The second article would put Eben in pretty (negatively) rare light.  However, its hard to tell if his specialty (neurosurgery) is being fairly compared as it seems to overindex compared to non-surgeons and even most surgical specialties.

Who knows?

Even if it was routine (especially if it was) it would make another income stream appealing.

I personally just find the thing bizarre.

How few are interested in the story itself. Most focus is on the story of the story of the story. Is everyone a storyteller, a dreamer of dreams? What of the facts, the foundation behind all this entertainment? Do the foundations count as little as the clouds? So it would seem --- to some.

Good question and I have no idea.  Quick google search:

https://www.fiercehealthcare.com/practic...uit-survey

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/doc...4e37033d00

The second article would put Eben in pretty (negatively) rare light.  However, its hard to tell if his specialty (neurosurgery) is being fairly compared as it seems to overindex compared to non-surgeons and even most surgical specialties.

Who knows?

Why don't you take a look at the IANDS article on this. Better still, Why not contact Alexander yourself ? You can include (Kamarling on this case), Max, Malf, Linda, Paul and everyone else on here that has a problem.

Do it ! Talk is easy. Armchair sceptics (not necessarily you)  piss me off. Sorry, but that's how I feel about it.

As I've said, I don't like the commercialism. The title of the book was not and never was, his idea. That was the publisher's, who of course want (ed) to make money. Alexander wanted to 'title' the book  "N of 1" meaning his illness was unique... (1 in 10 million) but not totally unique, I guess. 
 
The publisher's would have none of this (apparently)

What should he have done ? Not published his story ? Why ? Just so that the pseudo-sceptics can go on telling us that the brain produces consciousness ? *We are not on possession of all the facts about the case. And I'm not "buying" the Alexander is dishonest and untrustworthy story." Sorry.

No Tim, you are not reading my responses. You are deciding for me what is true and what is not. I did not say that Alexander chose the title - I said the publishers. I also said that the fact that he has been dishonest doesn't mean that he is always dishonest. If you are going to whitewash everyone who agrees with your worldview you are open to the same criticism as the psudo-sceptics you criticise.  All I am saying is that he could have been less concerned with selling a book and more concerned with opening an honest debate. The book could have come later. Others have taken that approach - interviews, articles, research then a book. If you want to diffuse pseudo-scepticism, don't play into their hands.

His wiki page says he had to settle 5 malpractice suits in Virginia in 10 years. That may be routine for the US I guess..?

I wouldn't say that 5 in 10 years is routine per se, but the US is heavy on med mal suits. They are far from uncommon, and good doctors can get hit with them with relative frequency.

I would not say him having med mal suits, even that number, mean that he's a bad neurosurgeon or that he doesn't know what he's doing - especially in a field as loaded with grey area as neurosurgery.

I wouldn't say that 5 in 10 years is routine per se, but the US is heavy on med mal suits. They are far from uncommon, and good doctors can get hit with them with relative frequency.

I would not say him having med mal suits, even that number, mean that he's a bad neurosurgeon or that he doesn't know what he's doing - especially in a field as loaded with grey area as neurosurgery.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't the criticism that he tried to cover up his mistakes, not that he made mistakes? Or am I misremembering? I did read the Esquire article at the time and thought it was a hit piece even though my overall impression of Alexander was somewhat poor. I wouldn't trust Wikipedia either - we all know that parapsychology does not get fair treatment on those pages. So perhaps Tim can clarify the issue further since he has been in direct contact?