Keith Augustine interview

I assume the goal of the internet skeptic (although, I venture to suggest that Max has different motives) is to find and exploit a perceived weakness in order to discredit the whole experience and, if possible, the whole field. So those who want to challenge the skeptics might cite a case like Pam Reynolds and ask "how could she have reported a conversation that took place while her brain was effectively inactive?".

If the skeptic can, as Woerlee and Augustine attempt to do, show that the brain was actually active and capable of creating hallucinations and/or hearing conversations during the period that her brain was supposedly shut down, then they might believe they have discredited any claim of psi phenomena. 

For me, I prefer to look at the whole experience and apply a little common sense. 

1. How does the experience compare with those reported by others in similar situations? If similar then a consistency is apparent which would be unlikely in the case of crisis hallucinations.

2. How likely is it that Pam Reynolds could actually - rather than purely theoretically - hear a conversation while heavily sedated by anaesthetic drugs? While having hear ears plugged by specially moulded inserts which were then heavily taped thereby further blocking external sounds and while loud noises were constantly fed into her ears. Remember that she reported the conversation accurately but had no memory of those loud "clicks" being fed into her ears.

3. Whether or not burst suppression was active, nobody can determine what the burst waveforms indicate. It can't be determined by the wave shape and frequency whether the patient is viewing an Out of Body scene, listening to an ongoing conversation or any other subjective conscious experience. For all anyone knows, it might be random neurological electrical activity. Maybe it is like the automatic convulsing of dying muscles such as the twitching of feet. 

4. Even if skeptics can show that anaesthesia awareness with accurate memories is possible, it is probably very rare (see below). In Pam Reynolds case, the precautions to prevent such awareness seem to have been comprehensive. And if we accept that there is still a remote statistical chance that all those precautions were ineffective, we still need to explain why her memories didn't include the inevitable pain and discomfort an "awake" brain would have encountered. Even the noises in her ears have been described as physically intolerable by those who have attempted a simulation.


Anaesthesia Awareness


So, if Wikipedia is correct, we should expect a patient such as Pam Reynolds to be traumatised by her memories of being aware of what was taking place in the OR. Was Reynolds traumatised by her experience? I can find no evidence that she was and plenty that she found the experience pleasant and illuminating.

Therefore common sense tells me that Woerlee has dedicated himself to a debunking mission. I ask myself: even if Reynolds had some ulterior motive for sticking to her story, why would her doctors collude? Everyone knows that a medical or scientific professional who becomes associated with stories of paranormal phenomena risks the opprobrium of their colleagues and peers. Such an association can be and has been career limiting. Woerlee, on the other hand, has become a leading light among the "critical thinkers". His biased approach to the Reynolds case (and NDEs in general) is only to be expected from a man who is an outspoken atheist and considers the possibility of a soul as nothing more than a religious delusion. In his own words:

I get what you are saying. So, regarding the Pam Reynolds case, or other cases where the patients can "see" things that they shouldn't, do these details really matter? Or do I misunderstand these cases, and this detail is actually important. Even if Pam's exact NDE were replicated with verified complete burst suppression (if it wasn't already), it just seems to me that the goalposts would be moved further down the line by any skeptics. 

It's already convincing to many that there's 'something' going on in these phenomena. To those not already convinced, what more evidence would there need to be, and is it realistic to obtain such evidence? If someone comes back from dying, they haven't actually died, and the skeptics could (and do) say by definition its not a death experience. Okay... so then how do you obtain something meaningful if it does exist from such experiences?

To summarize, it seems that additional data points such as this may (slightly) help those who already believe in the phenomenon of NDEs, but won't do much to help those who don't want to look into it.

To summarize, it seems that additional data points such as this may (slightly) help those who already believe in the phenomenon of NDEs, but won't do much to help those who don't want to look into it.

You mention two extremes of belief, (extreme sceptics are believers too!).
What about non-believers, those who simply ordinary people with no particular axe to grind?

There's a few interesting posts there and I understand where everyone is coming from.

However, the point about whether she was in burst suppression or wasn't ...isn't debateable, it's simply a fact. If anyone (except Max who's simply playing silly buggers)  wants to challenge this fact, please fire away with the questions and I'll deal with them.

I'm not an expert, I'm just a bloke from the UK but sometimes 'blokes' can discover interesting facts with a bit of poking about. That's what happened here. The case always was a perfect example of something paranormal. The only reason why there is any doubt about that, is because the people who don't like the obvious implications of it, have managed to cast doubt on it by 'throwing mud,' which is what they do.

Yeah, but we don’t know when Pam was put into burst suppression. And in the absence of any hard data (concrete facts?) there is good reason to suspect burst suppression was only induced after Spetzler had seen the aneurysm, as it was only at this point that he decided a standstill procedure was necessary.

Ps: we seem to have all the nutters out this Easter weekend.

As I've told you several times, Max that is not how Spetzler performed this operation. At Barrow, they sought burst suppression early (as it states in the published paper) before the opening of the skull.

1. Spetzler pioneered this operation technique.

2. Spetzler conducted this operation

3. Spetzler held the bone saw and clipped the aneurism

Many subsequent practitioners of this technique seek burst suppression later (after inspection of the problem). That was not the case at Barrow and that's a fact.

PS. By the time you've finished, Max I'll think I'll be nuts

There's a few interesting posts there and I understand where everyone is coming from.

However, the point about whether she was in burst suppression or wasn't ...isn't debateable, it's simply a fact. If anyone (except Max who's simply playing silly buggers)  wants to challenge this fact, please fire away with the questions and I'll deal with them.

I'm not an expert, I'm just a bloke from the UK but sometimes 'blokes' can discover interesting facts with a bit of poking about. That's what happened here. The case always was a perfect example of something paranormal. The only reason why there is any doubt about that, is because the people who don't like the obvious implications of it, have managed to cast doubt on it by 'throwing mud,' which is what they do.

Actually Tim I think you've done a good job in laying out the facts as received direct "from the horse's mouth".

I think you do yourself an injustice by suggesting that doubt has been cast by those 'throwing mud'. Most of it has ended up clinging to the thrower(s).

Actually Tim I think you've done a good job in laying out the facts as received direct "from the horse's mouth".

I think you do yourself an injustice by suggesting that doubt has been cast by those 'throwing mud'. Most of it has ended up clinging to the thrower(s).

Typoz, thanks !

At Barrow, they sought burst suppression early (as it states in the published paper) before the opening of the skull.

So I'm confused.  This means that Max is accusing the published paper of being fraudulent?

So I'm confused.  This means that Max is accusing the published paper of being fraudulent?

He's saying the published paper doesn't say what it clearly does say. It's right here in plain English

  "Our experience with profound hypothermia and circulatory arrest indicates that pre-arrest, 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."

The key word here is PRECOOLING (meaning before she was hooked up to the by-pass machine).  Pam clearly heard the cardiovascular surgeon, Camilla Mican, inform Spetzler that Pam's arteries were too small (on that side) to insert the catheter to initiate cooling.  

So it tells us that barbiturates in quantities sufficient to maintain burst suppression of EEG activity had already been administered when Pam heard the conversation. And it's literally impossible for anyone to be conscious in that state. And that's why sceptics refuse to listen to the truth.

I have more information on this case which is even more persuasive (if that's possible). Researcher Titus Rivas did sterling work in addition by 'interviewing' Dr Karl Greene (the assistant surgeon) who backed up these facts.