Keith Augustine interview

I'm curious about Karl Greene's input into the case. HIPAA regulations preclude releasing any medical information without written consent, and written consent comes with an expiration date or event. Pam died in 2010, so any consent she may have given has surely expired. Smithy, do you know who gave consent for Karl Greene to release medical information to you? I would presume that he reached out to somebody in order to clear this, as it is drummed into every physician that HIPAA violations are taken very, very seriously (people may get fired or lose their licenses over this).

With respect to EEG recordings, please note that SSEPs and BAEPs, which are also recorded during the procedure, are a specialized form of EEG. And the activity in those tracings are not lost during barbiturate suppression of the EEG, but rather persist until there is substantial hypothermia (less than 20 C) and standstill. So there are intact sensory pathways in the brain, even during burst suppression. All this is from Spetzler's paper referenced earlier. The "EEG" Karl Green referenced would have been referring to the measurement of "generalized cortical activity" only, and not to the ongoing activity from sensory input. A lack of activity in the SSEPs and BAEPs, except during standstill, would have been a cause for concern.

Amongst physicians, questions such as Max raised are answered by referring to the medical/surgical records, as they are a reliable record of the events (to answer the question of who knows better than Spetzler and his assistants).

Hi tim, the policy is that the mods don't evaluate people's affirmations on whether they're wrong or right or based on facts rather than speculation, and unfortunately yes that opens the door to frustration, but of course members are free to yell out "Bullshit"!

Thanks for the response, Ian! Okay if that's the position but personally I don't agree with it. What I've posted is the facts and what Max has posted is effectively sticking his fingers in his ears.

I'm curious about Karl Greene's input into the case. HIPAA regulations preclude releasing any medical information without written consent, and written consent comes with an expiration date or event. Pam died in 2010, so any consent she may have given has surely expired. Smithy, do you know who gave consent for Karl Greene to release medical information to you? I would presume that he reached out to somebody in order to clear this, as it is drummed into every physician that HIPAA violations are taken very, very seriously (people may get fired or lose their licenses over this).

With respect to EEG recordings, please note that SSEPs and BAEPs, which are also recorded during the procedure, are a specialized form of EEG. And the activity in those tracings are not lost during barbiturate suppression of the EEG, but rather persist until there is substantial hypothermia (less than 20 C) and standstill. So there are intact sensory pathways in the brain, even during burst suppression. All this is from Spetzler's paper referenced earlier. The "EEG" Karl Green referenced would have been referring to the measurement of "generalized cortical activity" only, and not to the ongoing activity from sensory input. A lack of activity in the SSEPs and BAEPs, except during standstill, would have been a cause for concern.

Amongst physicians, questions such as Max raised are answered by referring to the medical/surgical records, as they are a reliable record of the events (to answer the question of who knows better than Spetzler and his assistants).

EEG Burst suppression is all that is required to remove any possibility of consciousness.  Gerry Woerlee has stated this. I have all the quotes from him on this case as I do from Spetzler. The SSEP's as I remember (I'll look back into that) are just another precaution to monitor the possibilty of arousal. The BAER is mainly concerned with monitoring the nerves in the brainstem to make sure they are still intact and functioning (not damaged). The clicks from the BAER only stop registering completely during standstill but that doesn't help you any, Madam.

 @ the Mods.

This is a science forum where facts are surely preferred to hearsay and speculation. I don't think Max's comments should be allowed to stand, personally without being called out. I don't want to make a massive deal out of this but if someone is saying something that plainly isn't correct, isn't it fair game to call bullshit ?

I'm not a mod but I'm not in favour of mods deciding what is or isn't bullshit. It isn't the mods job to call out BS, it is ours, and I think you did a pretty good job of making your point, Tim. I agree with you but further, I think all this nit-picking in the Pam Reynolds case is skeptical hand-waving. It smacks of desperation to me. Taken as complete experience, Pam Reynolds is still a good case study.

The skeptical line of attack seems to be to isolate one reported experience that is held in high regard by proponents and introduce doubt so that people like Max will say "it's still not settled enough for me". That's a win for the skeptics in their book. It amounts to dismissal and the case goes on their list of the debunked. If they can claim that the "best case" has been debunked - as Augustine wants to claim - then they go on to claim that the whole NDE field and, further, all evidence for the afterlife is fantasy. Now that is frustrating!

That's what is done in science fields too though... if somebody comes up and claims things, other people will step up and try to poke holes in what they have said... in the end it sorts itself out... Eventually. 

I accept that, Max. What I was highlighting was a tactic used by skeptics. This is not poking holes, this is a concerted and ideological campaign - a mission - as the Secular Web calls it. Not the normal scientific process of hypothesis testing but systematic and targeted propaganda. I get a little fed up of people claiming the scientific high ground and telling me, patronisingly, that "this is how science works". Even as a layman I think I've read enough science literature to have a good idea how science works.

I get a little fed up of people claiming the scientific high ground and telling me, patronisingly, that "this is how science works".

Especially when they're not even scientists! 

But Pam's case isn't solid, it can't be, so there should be no need to get frustrated when people legitimately poke holes in it. I mean I want to hear about those holes. Take Woerlee's arguments on Pam's case, they generally seem reasonable to me, as far as they go. Where I take issue with Woerlee is he goes no further than to poke holes... he seems to have some anti religious bias, and that seems to be his motivating factor to get involved. It's a real pity he won't go any further than the standard explanations of all-in-your-head hallucinations, sensory leakage etc.

Woerlee's arguments seem reasonable ?? Yeah, it's reasonable alright... if you're either a blithering idiot or an ideological atheist NDE debunker.

To suggest that someone who is under burst suppression and has clicking nodules in their ears (11 clicks a second) as loud as jackhammer, suffering hypothermia in addition, can somehow hear a conversation and remember it. And later on when she is dead at a temperature of 27 degrees C,  still full of barbiturates with the clicks still banging away in her ears can be conscious.

This is not scepticsm, Max this is tom foolery with a jester's hat on.