Mega-thread for help with rebuttals against skeptical talking points

I was thinking about this more broadly recently.

From time to time  this forum is joined by some hardline sceptic, but they seldom last very long here.

It's probably to some extent true that we are as rough towards such members as proponents might find it on a sceptic forum. So the next question to be asked is this: is it simply a kind of symmetry, in each case a sort of cultish or cliquey social group rejecting the outsider? Certainly as a social phenomenon this does happen in all strata of society, and it would be difficult to argue that we are immune.

I think the key difference is proponents are largely fine with a skeptic believing what they choose, whereas skeptics are actively trying to convince people and often using pejorative language.

I think part of what makes this forum different is many of us are older and the idea of arguing about cases over and over again loses its appeal. And the philosophical stuff...we've probably gone over the major points so many times now it's unlikely anyone is gonna shift their positions.

There's also the fact that the skeptics lost, faster than even I imagined given that recent BBC short on precognitive dreams.

I think the key difference is proponents are largely fine with a skeptic believing what they choose, whereas skeptics are actively trying to convince people and often using pejorative language.

Well that's putting it very nicely. I've come across many stubbornly skeptical forums now and I noticed some patterns forming in their posts/comments (proponents can be guilty of these things too, but it's notable that I haven't really seen this behaviour on here by proponent or skeptic):

• Constant swearing and cussing to the point of immaturity and abuse that should warrant some kind of punishment but is often permitted. 
  
• Pretentious word salads and assertions of a belief that they portray as absolute fact with 100% seriousness. 
  
• Pointing out fallacies while performing them themselves. 
  
• Cherry-picking studies and quotes from studies, many of which tend to be outdated or already know to proponents. 
  
• Conflating psi/paranormal terms e.g. clairvoyance with mental mediumship, OBEs with NDEs.
  
• Providing 'evidence' for their view that is already known to proponents in a condescending manner. 
  
• Baiting/Clickbait. 
  
• Claiming to sympathise with a proponent's belief in order to not appear emotional, when in reality their tone and behaviour indicates this is likely dishonest. 
  
• Regularly speaking on behalf of entire scientific fields and all scientists even if they do not have the qualifications to make such statements. 
  
• Falsely claiming to be an expert or have studied a proponent's topic. This is most common from what I've seen with NDEs. 
  
• Labelling something as 'debunked' when in reality it has only been criticised, refuted, ridiculed or dismissed. 
  
• Going into any topic with the intention to debunk it, holding a priori assumptions. 
  
• Slanderous accusations of people such as Parnia and Sartori, labelling them as frauds who 'twist their results for their own gain', which are frequently made without any evidence other than not liking what they say. 
  
• Twisting facts about topics such as the Pam Reynolds case to mislead people. 
  
• Glossing over times when proponents give examples of not all scientists/doctors agreeing with them. 
  
• Dismissing the work of experts as just anecdotal and not bothering to read any further into it. 
  
• Citing biased articles intending to debunk or discredit a proponent or debated subject moreso than fairly analyse it, most commonly from Novella, either of the Carroll's or the Skeptical Inquirer, rather than citing a normal study that disagrees. 
  
• Cherry-picking aspects of phenomena e.g. features of NDEs to fit their explanations while ignoring aspects that don't. 
  
• Claiming that anecdotes are irrelevant and useless, only to then give anecdotes themselves against a proponent which have the same flaws as any other. This is done unironically and without any self-awareness or sarcasm. 
  

Hi guys, I noticed this study has been touched on (I think) briefly before. I'm referring to the very confusingly worded and misrepresented study into DMT in rat brains that Borjigin conducted: 

https://www.inverse.com/article/57145-na...rat-brains

In this article, they say this:

In this paper, Borjigin and her team describe the results of an experiment in which they induced cardiac arrest in rats and then measured the levels of two chemicals involved in the synthesis of DMT. The researchers also examined brain tissues from human cadavers for these chemicals. They note that the human brains contained one of them, while the rat brains contained two of the enzymes that are required to make DMT, not only in the pineal gland, but also in the cerebral cortex and the hippocampus. Unlike Strassman’s work suggests, she believes that it’s probably not the pineal gland driving DMT synthesis in rat brains.

“DMT synthesis was thought to take place outside of the brain, but we show the presence of DMT synthetic enzymes in the brain; in fact our data suggest DMT production is most likely from non-pineal cells of the brain,” she explains.

The whole thing is worded in a rather misleading way, trying to portray this study as evidence that DMT has been found in human brains even though it admits it's still just speculation. 

The actual study says this:

We report [1] cortical expression of INMT mRNA in rat and human brain, [2] colocalization of INMT and AADC mRNA in the same cells in rat brain, and [3] predominately non-overlapping expression of INMT with AADC mRNA in rat peripheral organs including the adrenal, kidney, lung, and heart. We further show that DMT is present in rat visual cortex in pineal-intact and pinealectomized animals. Moreover, we show DMT levels are significantly elevated by experimentally-induced cardiac arrest. Collectively, these data support the notion that DMT is synthesized in rat brain and at concentrations consistent with that of other known monoamine neurotransmitters. Our demonstration of INMT mRNA expression in human cerebral cortex, choroid plexus, and pineal gland also suggest that DMT biosynthesis may similarly occur in the human brain.

So they're saying that DMT wouldn't be limited to being produced by the pineal gland. They claim to be making connections between this and humans, but they aren't very clear at all about this. On NDEs, for example, they admitted this:

The cardiac arrest-induced increase of endogenous DMT release may be related to near-death experiences (NDEs), as a recent study reports NDE-like mental states in human subjects given exogenous DMT50. Not all rats in our current study exhibited a surge of DMT following cardiac arrest (Fig. 4), an interesting observation in light of the fact that NDEs are reported by less than 20% of patients who survive cardiac arrests51. It is unknown whether the concentrations of DMT reported in our study at cardiac arrest can elicit the effects of an exogenous psychedelic dose of DMT, or whether this surge of endogenous DMT similarly occurs in humans. Moreover, the conscious states reported by NDE survivors may involve contributions from several of the other neurotransmitters found to surge at cardiac arrest in our prior rodent study21. Further investigation is clearly warranted to investigate whether DMT plays a role in generating neural correlates of near-death consciousness.

So in other words, it's scientifically dishonest for folks to go around claiming DMT has been 'proven' to be the cause of NDEs. Not sure about whether it's found in the human brain or not-that's where this study starts making implications based on correlations, but it still reads like speculation, especially given that this was a RAT study.

I recall briefly reading the thread Max started that I believe was about this study. Didn't Parnia comment on this, or am I misremembering?

I recall Parnia commented on some experiment involving rats, but I can't find it now.
I thought it might have been on one of these sites, maybe it has been 'tidied up' or some content archived or deleted.

https://www.nourfoundation.com/

http://www.horizonresearch.org/

Just found this from the Daily Grail criticising the DMT theory, no idea how well it's aged: https://www.dailygrail.com/2018/08/are-n...ing-brain/

I also found this study however. Some of the people involved were the same as those on that 'DMT models NDEs based son semantic reports' study. I'm not sure what to make of this because of the confusing wording at times:
[/url]
[url=https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-51974-4#Sec10]Neural correlates of the DMT experience assessed with multivariate EEG

It's from November of last year, so I don't know if it's been covered on here already. It's to do more with consciousness than NDEs I think.

I think I might be missing the point, but given DMT's status as the "spirit molecule" even if there was a correlation between increased DMT production and NDEs why would that mean NDEs are just products of the brain?

We already know people can have not-so-near-Death Experiences due to fright, OOBEs in a state of calm, etc.

There's likely to be a chemical shift of some sort in the brain in all these instances, in the same way there are correlations for all conscious activity.

I suppose they might be hyping/exaggerating with this study as making 'interesting' progress in 'explaining consciousness'. The original source certainly seemed to a bit. But yes, that study was focusing on consciousness specifically (I think? Which form/version of 'consciousness' they mean isn't completely clear to me) and not NDEs.