Dr Eben Alexander's new book

Sorry Sciborg- 
but hearing something like "something may come out", feels to me like MacCarthy (hopefully people are familiar with the Sen. MacArthy trials in the US, which accused dozens of people of being communists) in the 1950s saying a person "may" be a communist. It is an implied assertion, without enough evidence to support in fact, and in court would probably qualify as liable, which I am not accusing you of BTW. The same happens all the time in modern politics but I will avoid names and specifics... It's attack by innuendo.

I'm just saying: if I were old enough in the 50's to be repelled by such things, I would have been, and this smacks of the same thing, only now I am old enough to realize I am repelled.

Saying you have doubt of Alexander's credibility is reasonable, suggesting that something "may come out" isn't. IMO.

There is a bit more to what Sci is saying. It appears that the author was the subject of a disciplinary hearing for dishonesty. I am not sure how relevant it is but IMHO it would go to credibility. Personally, i think there is so little evidential content in the experience, it doesn't make much difference for me. 

Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA
03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery. 
(http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf)

There is a bit more to what Sci is saying. It appears that the author was the subject of a disciplinary hearing for dishonesty. I am not sure how relevant it is but IMHO it would go to credibility. Personally, i think there is so little evidential content in the experience, it doesn't make much difference for me. 

Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA
03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery. 
(http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf)

Thanks for detail. But this, as I said in a prev post, an example of a person who made a mistake, and was trying to hide/mitigate that fact. Using this standard, I doubt there is anyone here with the credibility to say anything about anything. 

Saying that this history makes you unsure whether to trust this person? Fine. 
Saying that something might come out? Not fine. (again- my opinion only).

Thanks for detail. But this, as I said in a prev post, an example of a person who made a mistake, and was trying to hide/mitigate that fact. Using this standard, I doubt there is anyone here with the credibility to say anything about anything. 

Saying that this history makes you unsure whether to trust this person? Fine. 
Saying that something might come out? Not fine. (again- my opinion only).

This is true it was an error. I am sure you can see how this would undermine his credibility to some extent, if we're expected to take his word on something. It's more than just covering an error imho, I'd say it's quite a sophisticated act of dishonesty by someone in a trusted position. Whilst it doesn't make him Satan, it's at best a terrible error of judgement. What we make of it is, as you say, a matter for personal judgement.

Now I agree that probably a lot of people have done things that would call their integrity into question.i don't know about you but I'd be very wary of accepting the word of someone I don't know about anything important. If I knew they'd been disciplined for dishonesty I'd be doubly wary.

In this case I don't think it matters because what he says isn't, for me, of a nature that will make any difference to me. Not everyone will take the same view though, as you rightly point out.

I agree that, if that's the basis, there is no reason to expect he would have done anything dishonest as far as the subject under discussion is concerned and isn't a good reason to suggest "something may come out".

There is a bit more to what Sci is saying. It appears that the author was the subject of a disciplinary hearing for dishonesty. I am not sure how relevant it is but IMHO it would go to credibility. Personally, i think there is so little evidential content in the experience, it doesn't make much difference for me. 

Alexander, III, Eben, MD 0101-239440 Lynchburg, VA
03/23/09
Reprimand, $3500 monetary penalty, based on two patient cases of performing surgery on the wrong surgical site; and in one of the cases, failure to disclose same to the patient, and altering the original operative report to obscure the fact of the wrong site surgery. 
(http://www.dhp.virginia.gov/medicine/new...rief69.pdf)

Hi, Obiwan

As I understand it, mistakes and incidents of bad practice of all kinds in medicine are commonplace. The link you've posted shows many hundreds of cases just in one year alone.

If you follow this link, you'll see that over 60 % of doctors in the States have been sued, most more than once and surgery especially neurosurgery carries the highest risk

http://www.medscape.com/features/slidesh...015#page=2

Alexander was cleared to continue practicing without restriction.

Hi, Obiwan

As I understand it, mistakes and incidents of bad practice of all kinds in medicine are commonplace. The link you've posted shows many hundreds of cases just in one year alone.

If you follow this link, you'll see that over 60 % of doctors in the States have been sued, most more than once and surgery especially neurosurgery carries the highest risk

http://www.medscape.com/features/slidesh...015#page=2

Alexander was cleared to continue practicing without restriction.

Yep  I know that Tim. I don't think it makes him a bad person. That said, if he was giving evidence in court, the fact that he had been disciplined for dishonesty would affect the way his testimony was viewed. It would be the same for any of us. 

The fact that lots of people avoid tax, commit thefts, or assault people doesn't make any single instance of that less serious.  My view is that he is not a person of good character, or at least wasn't at the point where he was disciplined. It is not the fact that he made an error that is a problem in this instance, I think it is the fact that he tried to cover it, and how he went about it. I don't think it's right to minimise it. He was a professional person in a highly trusted position. 

That said, I think it is irrelevant to his description of his NDE experience because I don't think anyone will be making life changing decisions based taking his word in his report. I don't think he is saying all this is true and you must trust me because I am a doctor am incapable of lying. Personally, I don't think he's lying.

Well, there is no denying that it's incredibly odd... Even for an NDE. If you described it to me without explaining the circumstances, chances are that I would conclude that you were describing an acid trip. I think that there are better cases...

Hi, E Flowers.  I'm not trying to present myself as some kind of expert here, I'm certainly not.  And it's not specifically aimed at you.

LSD doesn't work on a brain without a cortex functioning and he wasn't given any (obviously). Secondly, his report contains imagery some seem to find "unbelievable."  But If there is another world, how can we possibly make "judgements" about what is believable and what is not ?  

I've been able to speak to several people who've visited this realm (or who have claimed to).  They can't find the words to
portray what it was like, there aren't any that exist that do the job (apparently).

Personally, I can't see what the problem is with the ride on the butterfly. Why would he put it in if it didn't happen...why would he invent a role for a deceased sister he'd never met. We don't have to be limited by our laws of physics in that realm (if it exists).

Such as?

That's sounds odd. Sort of like: "don't blame me, the voice in my head made me do it". I don't buy this. Fakery is fakery.

Or perhaps your example will elucidate.

Yep. I get where you're coming from. Here is an example (you'll have to trust me on this as it would mean digging it all out but if it's important I will try - I solemnly declare at the time of writing that I have never been caught by the authorities in any form of dishonesty )

Trance mediumship involves the purported communicator excercising some degree of control over the medium's body. Usually this is just the vocal cords however there are examples (George Chapman/Mr Lang) of the entire body being under the control of the ostensible communicator. 

Interestingly perhaps, communicators sometimes mention that they are still, to some extent, vulnerable to the thoughts of the medium if the trance isn't sufficiently deep. 

So if it is accepted as true, it seems to me there is evidence that the controlling entity can cause the mediums body to move. 

Most forms of physical mediumship seem to involve the medium in some sort of trance (not all - Leslie Flint for example). 

Although the mind of the ostensible communicator is expressing itself through the medium, I recall reading of one instance where the communicator intended to move an object using the construction it had formed from the medium (let's say ectoplasm), however the medium's body responded to the instruction and not the materialised mechanism.

So, taking it at face value it may be possible for the communicating entity to deliberately or inadvertently cause the entranced medium to move. Hence the importance of proper restraints for the medium.

This being so - would you call that fraud? I wouldn't personally. However to the man on the Clapham Omnibus it would look the same whether it was fraud or not, and if one doesn't accept the ability of discarnate people to communicate, fraud must be the explanation. 

Hope that helps.

Yep  I know that Tim. I don't think it makes him a bad person. That said, if he was giving evidence in court, the fact that he had been disciplined for dishonesty would affect the way his testimony was viewed. It would be the same for any of us. 

The fact that lots of people avoid tax, commit thefts, or assault people doesn't make any single instance of that less serious.  My view is that he is not a person of good character, or at least wasn't at the point where he was disciplined. It is not the fact that he made an error that is a problem in this instance, I think it is the fact that he tried to cover it, and how he went about it. I don't think it's right to minimise it. He was a professional person in a highly trusted position. 

That said, I think it is irrelevant to his description of his NDE experience because I don't think anyone will be making life changing decisions based taking his word in his report. I don't think he is saying all this is true and you must trust me because I am a doctor am incapable of lying. Personally, I don't think he's lying.

"My view is that he is not a person of good character,"

Sorry but that's way OTT for me, Obiwan . Doctors are human, humans f@ck up and they always will. A medical degree and a white coat doesn't prevent that and sometimes they're bound to find themselves in a situation where they don't act accordingly. We'll just have to agree to disagree.

"My view is that he is not a person of good character,"

Sorry but that's way OTT for me, (way over the top). Doctors are human, humans f@ck up and they always will. A medical degree and a white coat doesn't prevent that and sometimes they're bound to find themselves in a situation where they don't act accordingly.

Well you're entitled to your opinion. He's been disciplined for a dishonesty matter as far as I can see. He made an error and covered it up. Of course we don't know how it was discovered - he may have submitted himself for discipline. Luckily it doesn't seem to have harmed anyone.  It's a lack of integrity at that point in his career. Doesn't mean he isn't a good boy now. 

As a professional person myself, if I was found to have acted dishonesty (as he did - to protect his own reputation, or avoid the consequences) I'd expect to be disciplined by my registered body and to have that queried whenever I went to a client, if I disclosed it. I am a member of a couple of voluntary organisations and I know for a fact that a professional dishonesty finding would see me kicked out. 

That appears to be simply a fact of his career. I don't call a £3K fine light but it's certainly not at the top end of what they could have done. It's not the making of an error, it's the covering it up that was the issue. Most of us make mistakes and do things wrong at some point. If we get caught, the consequences can be long lasting. If we get caught pretending it didn't happen - usually it's worse.

Yep. I get where you're coming from. Here is an example (you'll have to trust me on this as it would mean digging it all out but if it's important I will try - I solemnly declare at the time of writing that I have never been caught by the authorities in any form of dishonesty )

Trance mediumship involves the purported communicator excercising some degree of control over the medium's body. Usually this is just the vocal cords however there are examples (George Chapman/Mr Lang) of the entire body being under the control of the ostensible communicator. 

Interestingly perhaps, communicators sometimes mention that they are still, to some extent, vulnerable to the thoughts of the medium if the trance isn't sufficiently deep. 

So if it is accepted as true, it seems to me there is evidence that the controlling entity can cause the mediums body to move. 

Most forms of physical mediumship seem to involve the medium in some sort of trance (not all - Leslie Flint for example). 

Although the mind of the ostensible communicator is expressing itself through the medium, I recall reading of one instance where the communicator intended to move an object using the construction it had formed from the medium (let's say ectoplasm), however the medium's body responded to the instruction and not the materialised mechanism.

So, taking it at face value it may be possible for the communicating entity to deliberately or inadvertently cause the entranced medium to move. Hence the importance of proper restraints for the medium.

This being so - would you call that fraud? I wouldn't personally. However to the man on the Clapham Omnibus it would look the same whether it was fraud or not, and if one doesn't accept the ability of discarnate people to communicate, fraud must be the explanation. 

Hope that helps.

Still not sure what happened in this particular example, that is fraudulent. The medium's body moved? Not exactly a fraudulent thing I would say.

Anyway let me give you a different example:

Recently I saw a physical medium at a seance. He was tightly bound at the wrists and gagged.

During the seance the curtains were opened and we saw the medium's body with what was reported to be ectoplasm emanating from his face. He was manipulating it with, as far as I can tell (the light was VERY LOW), his hands. the mass of material was quite large.

Well, if he was bound, how was he using his hands unless he freed himself from his bindings? We can assume he did free himself but the (again) assumption, is that spirit de-materialized the bindings and later at the end of the seance, we had to cut those bindings off his (bound again) wrists.

Fraud? Well, only if you feel that the medium freed himself somehow. OTOH- if spirit unbound him, performed these things and re-bound him, perhaps not.