Keith Augustine interview

Up until five years ago, there were three of these cases at Barrow Institute, of conscious awareness while the brain was dead. Dr Allan Hamilton was very approachable with questions (not so much now, I think he got fed up with me and I don't blame him) and he told me this and he also revealed it in his memoirs, The Scalpel and the Soul.

He amalgamated the three cases into one and called her 'Sarah Gideon.' One was Pam Reynolds.
One of the cases was not an aneurism but she was still placed in standstill for some reason. Whist there was no blood in her body, no brainwaves whatsoever (she was dead Hamilton said)  she apparently heard a conversation about a yellow diamond ring with all the details and she was able to describe the surgeons and doctors etc.

I specifically asked Dr Hamilton if this conversation about the ring really happened and he said 'yes' but it wasn't an aneurism. Anymore than that he wouldn't tell me. Like many others, I found it frustrating that he'd cobbled them all together. We could have had a 'field day' discussing them individually, but there you go.

One of the cases (don't know which) caused such a rumpus that the chief At Barrow told them to stop talking about it, saying that it must have been the case that there was still some electrical activity in the brain. But Hamilton went through the whole EEG records with experts and viewed all the film track of the operation. The brain had been dead.

There was some big-wig from England there too who said it was a clear case of consciousness without a brain.
Hamilton said in his book there was a big argument about it in the hospital canteen.

I'm forced to remain skeptical of such stories... otherwise you may as well just accept any old third party thing... where does it stop?  Some trained medics are already deliberately provocative too... like Lorber, who had his party piece story about whether a brain was even necessary, but again, he never actually wrote up the case.

But what you are say is also silly and provocative. There can't be three stories if Pam was one of them? Because the periods of recollection from her OBE certainly didn't happen when her brain was "dead"?

Also by definition, people who recover could not have had a dead brain, otherwise they would not of recovered. I mean people really have to accept that a non-functioning brain, does not imply that the cells that make up the brain have died or completely stopped functioning. Cooling, chemicals, CPR can all extend the ability of the cells to survive a period of energy starvation.

I'm forced to remain skeptical of such stories... otherwise you may as well just accept any old third party thing... where does it stop?  Some trained medics are already deliberately provocative too... like Lorber, who had his party piece story about whether a brain was even necessary, but again, he never actually wrote up the case.

But what you are say is also silly and provocative. There can't be three stories if Pam was one of them? Because the periods of recollection from here OBE certainly didn't happen when her brain was "dead"?

Also by definition, people who recover could not have had a dead brain, otherwise they would not of recovered. I mean people really have to accept that a non-functioning brain, does not imply that the cells that make up the brain have died or completely stopped functioning. Cooling, chemicals, CPR can all extend the ability of the cells to survive a period of energy starvation.

A couple of comments about this response and, by extension, about skepticism in general.

"I'm forced to remain skeptical of such stories" ... What, in this instance, do you mean by skeptical? Either the Doctor is telling the truth or he is lying (or Tim has fabricated the whole thing though I doubt you are suggesting that). This is not the kind of skepticism that suggests other interpretations of the data or missing information - it is a statement of events by a trained professional. You go on to indicate, with your "party piece" comment, that the doctor was indeed fabricating the stories for attention. 

I think this happens a lot with skepticism: when the stories don't support the skeptic's worldview, somebody must have been lying. "I need more proof" is a place holder for "I don't believe a word of it". Of course, it is your right to be skeptical but evidence is a two-way street. Some evidence of fraud or mendacity should be required otherwise it amounts to defamation.

The "brain is not dead" argument is becoming a go-to rejection by skeptics. We all know what Tim means and what Parnia means, etc., and we all know that death in the absolute sense means no recovery. But it is again a skeptical device - when all else fails, point out that there is no death in "near-death". It gets a little tiresome when the discussion is reduced to that.

I'm forced to remain skeptical of such stories... otherwise you may as well just accept any old third party thing... where does it stop?  Some trained medics are already deliberately provocative too... like Lorber, who had his party piece story about whether a brain was even necessary, but again, he never actually wrote up the case.

But what you are say is also silly and provocative. There can't be three stories if Pam was one of them? Because the periods of recollection from her OBE certainly didn't happen when her brain was "dead"?

Also by definition, people who recover could not have had a dead brain, otherwise they would not of recovered. I mean people really have to accept that a non-functioning brain, does not imply that the cells that make up the brain have died or completely stopped functioning. Cooling, chemicals, CPR can all extend the ability of the cells to survive a period of energy starvation.

Max said > "But what you are say (ing) is also silly and provocative."

Silly and provocative ?  Firstly, Max, it wasn't me who said it, it was Dr Allan Hamilton. He amalgamated the cases of three patients for his memoirs, he said so publicly and he also told me that privately and I have the emails which I am happy to hand over to Laird/ Ian/ Doug so that they can see them. I can't publish the emails because Hamilton might sue me.

I thought you knew about this, obviously you don't. As for being provocative, I can well imagine it is for the likes of yourself and your theory. Nevertheless, it's a fact unless Hamilton is lying and I don't think that is very likely. He is the chair of one of the largest neurosurgical programmes in the world and is not likely to be telling tall stories.  

Page 203 The Scalpel and the soul.

"To satisfy myself, I took a copy of the EEG and showed it to two more colleagues in neurology who routinely read EEG printouts for a living......Both of them assured me that the EEG was uniqivocal : The patient's brain was dead."


From Michael Tymn : https://www.sott.net/article/152171-Back-from-the-Dead

Addendum (added March 28): After posting this entry several days ago, I attempted contact with Dr. Hamilton in hopes of obtaining more information on the "Sarah Gideon" case. I just heard from Dr. Hamilton and he explained that some of the stories in the book, including this one, are amalgams, or blended stories. I had suspected that the names were pseudonyms for privacy reasons and recalled Dr. Hamilton mentioning this in the Introduction. However, I had overlooked the fact that he also mentioned that some of the stories are amalgams. It appears that the "Pam Reynolds" case is part of the amalgam. I infer from Dr. Hamilton's comments that there is a case or two that actually "plugs the holes" in the Pam Reynolds case, but for patient privacy reasons the name(s) cannot be given.

 Are you going to tell us that Hamilton doesn't know what he's talking about, Max ?

NB. The hole Tymn is referring to has now been plugged anyway.

"I took a copy of the EEG and showed it to two more colleagues in neurology who routinely read EEG printouts for a living......Both of them assured me that the EEG was uniqivocal : The patient's brain was dead."

Are you going to tell us that Hamilton doesn't know what he's talking about, Max ?

Definitely sounds like it if the patient recovered.. Ha!

A couple of comments about this response and, by extension, about skepticism in general.

"I'm forced to remain skeptical of such stories" ... What, in this instance, do you mean by skeptical? Either the Doctor is telling the truth or he is lying..."

That's a very limited binary option you've offered me... there are many more options available if you think carefully about it, and many more we probably haven't thought about...

Why, with my own NHS consultants, I sometimes obtain a second private opinion... often these professionals do not agree at all. Experts are only human, they are affected by all the same human issues as we all are.

Definitely sounds like it if the patient recovered.. Ha!

Max, brain dead is how the medical profession can refer to patients with no brain activity. I have several quotes from various surgeons and doctors which refer to 'brain dead' and yet the patient recovered.  

So, is what I wrote still provocative and silly ? Do you now accept what I said was correct or are you going to try and avoid it ?

Maybe sometimes people confuse  scepticism with the need to see somethings for themselves,  no matter how good the witnesses are. Kinda exceeded the boggle threshold.  . If that’s the case, I’d rather they just said that.

I have several quotes from various surgeons and doctors which refer to 'brain dead' and yet the patient recovered.  

What by just looking at an EEG recording... lol... they should be struck off!

What by just looking at an EEG recording... lol... they should be struck off!

So you're saying that Allan Hamilton doesn't know what he's talking about ? 

Why can't the truth be allowed to be said just because you don't like it ?

BTW. Ernst Rodin told me that EEG is the best way of assessing brain activity. He should know, he pioneered it.

I don't want to keep quoting famous names as if that rubs off on me, it doesn't. But I wanted to know the 'answers' to some of these questions and the internet with emails made it/them accessible.

So you're saying that Allan Hamilton doesn't know what he's talking about ?  You really let yourself down sometimes.

Why can't the truth be allowed to be said just because you don't like it ?

You're just being silly and provocative to say somebodies brain is dead, who recovers... that they have recovered, just shows the description of the patients brain was inaccurate... shit happens.