Keith Augustine interview

Just a point here which is very important. Arguing about deep brain structures still functioning out of reach of the EEG in this context is irrelevant. After cardiac arrest, within 10-20 seconds, the brain stem stops functioning. This is a biological fact always ignored by pseudo sceptics (I don't mean Max)

(Apparently) Without a functioning brain stem, there can be nothing going on in the brain. That is why the eyes don't respond to light (corneal reflex) and patients don't gag when a tube is pushed down their throat to intubate them (for breathing). It's a bit like knocking off the main fuse switch in your house. There aren't some rooms that still have power to them, the lights are out all over.

This information is available to anyone, doctor or layperson such as myself. I don't have time to start rooting around 
(once more) for links but I can assure you that is the case.

There are plenty of documents on the web which may give you a basic primer on EEG... here's one I picked up at random from a google search...

https://www.fil.ion.ucl.ac.uk/spm/course...h_MEEG.pdf

Unfortunately I'm not likely to be able to give you responses to your other questions which you would like to hear. But you can find answers to some of them through my posts on here, Skeptiko, and my blog.

Again, I am aware that EEGs do not register all activity in the brain, but I get that you don't want to keep at it. In any case, thank you for responding, I know you are an open minded person trying to make sense of a lot of this data, we don't agree in terms of what to make of it, but that's fine.

Hi, Hjortron

Keith Augustine's statements about the state of Pam Reynolds brain (when she heard the conversation and saw the bone saw) are completely wrong. At that time she was in a barbiturate coma with flat brain waves. The surgeons have told us this and it's all outlined and published in Rivas, Dirven and Smit's book, "The Self does not die." 

Keith is talking rubbish, that's all there is to it. I emailed him several years ago and told him this and his reply was...."I don't believe what doctors tell me." (Spetzler and Greene who conducted the operation).

He does, however believe Dr Woerlee's ideas about the case, who was not even there. Terrible behaviour.

Hi.
I know a few years late to this post, but can you give me a screenshot of Keiths email?
This could be good evidence for people to NOT trust Keith Augustine.

Hi.
I know a few years late to this post, but can you give me a screenshot of Keiths email?
This could be good evidence for people to NOT trust Keith Augustine.

Try sending a pm to Tim. It was a private conversation after all.

[Laird]

can you give me a screenshot of Keiths email?

Try sending a pm to Tim. It was a private conversation after all.

Tim has been in touch with me privately, and has let me know that he is unwilling to share the email publicly out of respect for Keith's privacy (an ethical position which I respect, and one to which I adhere myself), but he has gone so far as to share the contents of the email with me privately, and I can confirm that tim's paraphrasing captures the essence of Keith's first sentence in the email, although I think three things should be clarified:

Firstly, Keith stipulated the context of his disbelief in what doctors say as the determination of the truth in cases such as these; it was not the general context - that is, he was not saying, for example, that he does not believe the medical advice of doctors who are treating him (I presume that in that case, he does - in general - believe what his doctors tell him, although we would have to ask him to know for sure).

Secondly, he also implied a further stipulation of the context as the secondhand relaying of what a doctor said. Whether that's integral to his statement though isn't clear to me.

Thirdly, his actual statement was a little less definitive than in tim's paraphrasing.

I've run these clarifications by tim and he's agreeable to them. He's also suggested though that his underlying point be emphasised: that given the absence of access to the surgical notes, the word of the surgeon is the best we have, and it is unreasonable to reject it, and contradictory too when accepting the word of "skeptical" doctors.

I've run these clarifications by tim and he's agreeable to them. He's also suggested though that his underlying point be emphasised: that given the absence of access to the surgical notes, the word of the surgeon is the best we have, and it is unreasonable to reject it, and contradictory too when accepting the word of "skeptical" doctors.

Of course it should be borne in mind that sceptical doctors are always operating at a considerable distance from the cases, they rarely if ever have any first-hand experience in these matters. I'm reminded of an account given by Pim Van Lommel of something which happened at one of his public talks. I paraphrase briefly, at the end of the talk, a man stood up and said something like "This is total nonsense, I am a doctor and in all my years I've never heard anything like this" At which another man stood up and said (something like) "Doctor, I am one of your patients, I had an NDE and you are the LAST person I would have told". There are examples of sceptical doctors simply walking out of the room when a patient begins to talk of their NDE. Perhaps simply having the patience to sit and listen to first-hand accounts from the mouth of the patient will almost inevitably lead to becoming open-minded on these matters.

[Laird]

Good point, Typoz. (By the way, there's an unfortunate - though somewhat amusing! - typo in your paraphrasing of the doctor's patient).

Good point, Typoz. (By the way, there's an unfortunate - though somewhat amusing! - typo in your paraphrasing of the doctor's patient).

Thanks Laird, it was amusing but I've changed it now.

Try sending a pm to Tim. It was a private conversation after all.

Spetzler has told us numerous times that she was under burst suppression when she made her observations (the first lot, anyway, in the second set, she was dead)

In addition to that, I specifically asked him in a very precise way, so that it would be simple to answer (surgeons are busy) and so there could be no arguments about interpretation. Smithy asked him the same question in a slightly different way and received the same answer. She was under burst suppression and you cannot be conscious in that state, period. 

It says so here in Spetzler's published paper anyway.  

  Page 876 Spetzler et al

Our experience with profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest indicates that prearrest, precooling administration of barbiturates (thiopental) in quantities sufficient to maintain burst suppression of EEG activity has not been deleterious and probably has improved cerebral protection.

I've bolded the pre cooling. When Pam heard the conversation about (one of her) her femoral arteries being to small to get the canula in (the plastic tube) the thoracic surgeon was trying to hook her up to the by-pass machine, to begin the main cooling process. This is the cooling referred to above. 

What does it say... precooling administration of barbiturates (thiopental) in quantities sufficient to maintain burst suppression of EEG activity has not been deleterious and probably has improved cerebral protection.

This is how Spetzler and his team performed this operation. Gerry Woerlee is correct when he says that many clinics (nowadays) seek burst suppression later  in the operation after the aneurysm has been inspected but Spetzler's team had found it to be beneficial to do so, earlier. 

There is nothing else to say about this. His patient, Pam Reynolds was under burst suppression when she made her observation. Period. Her brain was completely dysfunctional. So whatever was aware and doing the observing could not have been her brain. 

This is why Augustine and Woerlee simply won't acknowledge this point. It's terrible behaviour. If it's not, then what is it ? Someone please explain why Woerlee is allowed to tell blatant falsehoods ? He wasn't even present at the Barrow Institute in 1991, he only got involved in NDE's much later when he realised the significance of the threat they pose to his world view. 

I'm sorry to say this, but Woerlee's behaviour is that of a complete asshat.  I don't see how anyone can defend someone who just simply denies uncomfortable facts using blatant lies. And he's done this with several other cases.