I tried Gerry's "Pam hearing" test

Hi all, it's the newcomer again.

I'm pretty sure you have already debated Pam's case enough, but I'm pretty new to all of this. A big deal of her NDE is that she heard conversation and music, but never spoke about the noise in her ears.
Gerry Woerlee, a staunch skeptic/materialst and anesthesiologist, claimed her case was anesthesia awareness and that she filtered out the noises produced by the earbuds reflexively, being herself a trained musician. He compared doing this to filtering background noise on street or on a bus, and provided instructions to do the test at home. My results:

1. You can definetly hear conversation happening close to you. I was wearing hearbuds, and had some conversation going on on my phone from a YT video, I could understand nearly everything
   
2. The noise was bad enough in the first 10 seconds, but after 30 or so seconds it became nearly impossible to tolerate. The clicks, although not terribly powerful, are still loud enough to become a horrible sensation after a while.
   
3. I couldn't just "not register" the clicks. I focused on the conversation, but noise was loud enough that I couldn't just not realize that it was there, or not recall it all.
   

We know that probably Pam's hearbuds, being molded and taped, provided ever more dampening from sounds coming outside of her hears. I don't think it is totally rational of Gerry to say that she understood nearly perfectly what people said, or the music being played, while totally ignoring those clicks. Has any of you tried that test? You can find it here, on Gerry's website:
http://www.neardth.com/failed-hearing-test.php

(the link is broken, but the tool is still on the manufacturer's page)

Hi all, it's the newcomer again.

I'm pretty sure you have already debated Pam's case enough, but I'm pretty new to all of this. A big deal of her NDE is that she heard conversation and music, but never spoke about the noise in her ears.
Gerry Woerlee, a staunch skeptic/materialst and anesthesiologist, claimed her case was anesthesia awareness and that she filtered out the noises produced by the earbuds reflexively, being herself a trained musician. He compared doing this to filtering background noise on street or on a bus, and provided instructions to do the test at home. My results:

1. You can definetly hear conversation happening close to you. I was wearing hearbuds, and had some conversation going on on my phone from a YT video, I could understand nearly everything
   
2. The noise was bad enough in the first 10 seconds, but after 30 or so seconds it became nearly impossible to tolerate. The clicks, although not terribly powerful, are still loud enough to become a horrible sensation after a while.
   
3. I couldn't just "not register" the clicks. I focused on the conversation, but noise was loud enough that I couldn't just not realize that it was there, or not recall it all.
   

We know that probably Pam's hearbuds, being molded and taped, provided ever more dampening from sounds coming outside of her hears. I don't think it is totally rational of Gerry to say that she understood nearly perfectly what people said, or the music being played, while totally ignoring those clicks. Has any of you tried that test? You can find it here, on Gerry's website:
http://www.neardth.com/failed-hearing-test.php

(the link is broken, but the tool is still on the manufacturer's page)

Smithy (Rudolf Smit) Michael Prescot and a couple of others tried it and stated that the clicks were extremely irritating and could not be ignored/ the conversation was hard to discern. However, their ears were not prepared in anyway near the same way Pam's were. Her ears were completely occluded and sealed with mounds of gauze and tape.

The lead technologist (SD) at Barrow then, posted this to help :

O.K. all ready? I am the lead IONM practitioner at BARROW Neurological Institute (where the surgery was performed). I was a lead technologist back then, and am MOST familiar with the technical parameters that were used. I was actually monitoring a case in the next operating room when my colleague monitored the case in discussion.

The auditory stimuli in the ipsi ear was a broad based frequency spectrum click (no pips: no tones were not used). We stimulated at a rate of 11.3/second with a pulse duration of 100 microseconds. The contralateral ear was masked with 40-60 decibel white noise. We used Hal-hen brand ear pieces (probably size 5) to introduce the stimuli, which was generated by a Nicolet brand (Cardenal Heath this week/ don't get me started on heath-care) T-300 audio generator. We then used vi-drape sticky "glue" on the inner area of the pinna of the ear, before sealing up the system with gauze and micropore tape. (This was done to eliminate any fluid from getting near our system).

I know how loud we played the music in those operating rooms (we have new operating rooms now) and I know the individual team members and how loud their voices are. I would be surprised if a repeated experiment with the exact parameters allowed a person to hear through the stimuli. Of course none of this information is a scientific argument for the fact that 'she did or did not hear hear.....vs an experience. Now at least you have the correct parameters to determine if one CAN hear externally during auditory stimulation if you re run the experiment. (SD) Barrow Institute


Now, bear in mind that SD is not talking about someone under general anaesthesia here (as well). Let alone burst suppression. He's merely talking about a fully alert person wearing these headphones under those parameters...could they hear ?

Let's return to Pam Reynolds' situation. At the time she heard the conversation she was under barbiturate burst suppression, the deepest anaesthetic state possible without damaging brain cells. Her body temperature was 32 Degrees C, five degrees below normal (going down). For every one degree of temperature downwards, 5-10% of brain function is lost....even without any anaesthesia !

Adding burst suppression (with EEG monitoring) completely rules out any possibility of her hearing anything through her physiological pathways.

Only militant atheist pseudo sceptics and secular web philosophers try to suggest anything else simply because they know what it points to and they really don't like it.

Edit : Brain function information

The relationship between temperature and brain activity has been extensively studied using electrophysiology. Animal studies have shown a close relationship between brain temperature and cerebral metabolic rate of oxygen (CMRO2) [34]. Previous studies in rats and dogs reported that temperature changes of more than 1°C significantly altered both functional neurologic outcome and histopathology [35]. Cerebral metabolism changes linearly with brain temperature, with 6 to 8% changes in metabolism per degree Celsius of temperature [36, 37]. In anesthetized dogs at 28°C, cerebral metabolism represents only 50% of that at 37°C

https://www.hindawi.com/journals/arp/2012/989487/

Smithy (Rudolf Smit) Michael Prescot and a couple of others tried it and stated that the clicks were extremely irritating and could not be ignored/ the conversation was hard to discern. However, their ears were not prepared in anyway near the same way Pam's were. Her ears were completely occluded and sealed with mounds of gauze and tape.

The lead technologist (SD) at Barrow then, posted this to help :

O.K. all ready? I am the lead IONM practitioner at BARROW Neurological Institute (where the surgery was performed). I was a lead technologist back then, and am MOST familiar with the technical parameters that were used. I was actually monitoring a case in the next operating room when my colleague monitored the case in discussion.

The auditory stimuli in the ipsi ear was a broad based frequency spectrum click (no pips: no tones were not used). We stimulated at a rate of 11.3/second with a pulse duration of 100 microseconds. The contralateral ear was masked with 40-60 decibel white noise. We used Hal-hen brand ear pieces (probably size 5) to introduce the stimuli, which was generated by a Nicolet brand (Cardenal Heath this week/ don't get me started on heath-care) T-300 audio generator. We then used vi-drape sticky "glue" on the inner area of the pinna of the ear, before sealing up the system with gauze and micropore tape. (This was done to eliminate any fluid from getting near our system).

I know how loud we played the music in those operating rooms (we have new operating rooms now) and I know the individual team members and how loud their voices are. I would be surprised if a repeated experiment with the exact parameters allowed a person to hear through the stimuli. Of course none of this information is a scientific argument for the fact that 'she did or did not hear hear.....vs an experience. Now at least you have the correct parameters to determine if one CAN hear externally during auditory stimulation if you re run the experiment. (SD) Barrow Institute


Now, bear in mind that SD is not talking about someone under general anaesthesia here (as well). Let alone burst suppression. He's merely talking about a fully alert person wearing these headphones under those parameters...could they hear ?

Let's return to Pam Reynolds' situation. At the time she heard the conversation she was under barbiturate burst suppression, the deepest anaesthetic state possible without damaging brain cells. Her body temperature was 32 Degrees C, five degrees below normal (going down). For every one degree of temperature downwards, 5-10% of brain function is lost....even without any anaesthesia !

Adding burst suppression (with EEG monitoring) completely rules out any possibility of her hearing anything through her physiological pathways.

Only militant atheist pseudo sceptics and secular web philosophers try to suggest anything else simply because they know what it points to and they really don't like it.

I didn't know of this statements from the technologist, they sure are interesting. Yes, her earbuds are surely different from what I used and I wasn't under anesthesia. The clicks aren't exactly a jackhammer near you, but they are surely terribly annoying in the first 10/20 second, then become bad enough that you want to remove the earbuds, and if you go at about 1 minute with the noise in your ears it starts becoming painful or anyway a horrible sensation. I would say that if you can ear conversation throught molded earbuds and taping and all that, you should also at least notice some very hard background noise. Can you filter it so it doesn't feel like you are going crazy? I don't know, maybe. But you should surely notice that it is there.

Also, her NDE lasted pretty long, and neither in the first phase nor in the second one she ever mentioned any background noise or interference. It sounds nearly impossible. I mean, consciousness being outside of her body also sounds crazy I get it, but Gerry's dismissal seems totally biased.

I didn't know of this statements from the technologist, they sure are interesting. Yes, her earbuds are surely different from what I used and I wasn't under anesthesia. The clicks aren't exactly a jackhammer near you, but they are surely terribly annoying in the first 10/20 second, then become bad enough that you want to remove the earbuds, and if you go at about 1 minute with the noise in your ears it starts becoming painful or anyway a horrible sensation. I would say that if you can ear conversation throught molded earbuds and taping and all that, you should also at least notice some very hard background noise. Can you filter it so it doesn't feel like you are going crazy? I don't know, maybe. But you should surely notice that it is there.

Also, her NDE lasted pretty long, and neither in the first phase nor in the second one she ever mentioned any background noise or interference. It sounds nearly impossible. I mean, consciousness being outside of her body also sounds crazy I get it, but Gerry's dismissal seems totally biased.

Gerry's explanations are absurd. They're fuelled by desperation. No one at Barrow Institute believed that Pam Reynolds somehow woke up. It categorically does not and cannot occur in that type of operation. And anyway, they would have been sued for malpractice.

Furthermore, in the second part of her veridical observations, Pam was dead. Sorry, sceptics but that's just a fact. I'm not going to go over all this again though, people believe what they want to believe by and large and you can only go so far trying to present the facts.