Keith Augustine interview

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.

They're not my words, you're behaving like an idiot ! Take it up with Allan Hamilton, for goodness sake.

(From Michael Tymns link) "Hamilton says there was no question that Gideon was brain dead at the time the conversation took place. "...we also had here unequivocal, scientific evidence that not only was her brain not working, it specifically demonstrated the absence of all cortical electrical activity when these conversations actually took place,"

This is indeed a bit confusing until you delve into it. He couldn't recount three separate stories on the same theme, so he amalgamated them. It doesn't mean, as the sceptics like to believe, that there weren't really three patients that experienced this phenomenon. There were three, one wasn't an aneurism but they all heard and saw things when their brains were dead, meaning totally non functioning.

You've been told this numerous times but you don't like it, so you pretend to be outraged about an 'absurd claim.' Thing is, it isn't a claim anymore, these things happen so you would be well advised to come to terms with it, as painful as that might be for you, Max.

They're not my words, you're behaving like an idiot ! Take it up with Allan Hamilton, for goodness sake.

Hamilton says there was no question that Gideon was brain dead at the time the conversation took place. "...we also had here unequivocal, scientific evidence that not only was her brain not working, it specifically demonstrated the absence of all cortical electrical activity when these conversations actually took place,"

You know you’re wasting your time right? Lol

You know you’re wasting your time right? Lol

I know, you're right, Obiwan. [Image: wink.png]

I know, you're right, Obiwan. [Image: wink.png]

Just checking...... lol

And I can just guess, your gonna tell me that later he wasn't...?  

He ? No, two of the cases definitely weren't men, the other one might have been, I don't know. Pam Reynolds was one and the other was a religious minded woman. She was the one who heard a very detailed conversation about an engagement ring and where it was purchased and more. She was unfortunately killed in a car crash. (He told me this)

I wondered if Hamilton had made this conversation up as a 'decoration'... so that's why I emailed him to ask him. Apparently no, it wasn't made up, this was a real patient and there was a conversation about a nurse's forthcoming engagement. LOL

Since the case is an amalgam, as you rightly point out, I personally hold that we should simply ignore it, Tim. See: Book Review

There are plenty of strong, reliable cases (as you know, Chapter 3 of The Self Does Not Die is dedicated to them) and we don't need cases like that of Sarah Gideon. 

Also, because Hamilton has turned out to be a rather unreliable author, it makes little sense to quote him on any case, in my opinion. 
I'm not saying his intentions were fraudulent in the usual sense, but still, this is not what any serious author should do.

If he wishes to present real cases rather than amalgams next time, he'd better make sure he has all the documentation to back up his claims. 
And I personally would not give him much priority, even if I gave him a new chance. 

Authors like Hamilton do the field a great disservice through their shenanigans, even if their intentions are actually positive. We don't need to defend their work against the debunkers. 

Titus

Your points are noted, Titus.  I agree that we don't need amalgams; I don't know why he didn't just stick with the Pam Reynolds case and leave the other two anonymous cases out.

However, the point I was trying to make was aimed at Max, who stated previously that such cases basically cannot happen...there aren't any, period. So it was a general point, that's all.

Hamilton was always kind enough to reply to my requests for information so I can't agree with the last part of your post but once again, I note what you say with interest.

Your points are noted, Titus.  I agree that we don't need amalgams; I don't know why he didn't just stick with the Pam Reynolds case and leave the other two anonymous cases out.

However, the point I was trying to make was aimed at Max, who stated previously that such cases basically cannot happen...there aren't any, period. So it was a general point, that's all.

Hamilton was always kind enough to reply to my requests for information so I can't agree with the last part of your post but once again, I note what you say with interest.

He also kindly replied to my requests for information, Tim, and as you can read in my review, I think this shows his underlying basic integrity. 

Nevertheless, he has disqualified himself as a reliable source of information and really will have to demonstrate that he's speaking the truth next time. Even if we believe, as I do, that he probably will not make the same mistake twice, we can't expect anyone to just assume that he has learned from it.

Whilst the surgery is discussed at (interminable) length, I’ve never really seen any discussion about the point during her (presumably lengthy) recovery, at which Pam first talked about her experience and to whom. Does anyone have that info? (sorry if this is old ground for some of you).