NDE study by Kondziella and Olsen

Lol

yea, won't have much more to say, you little lier and smearer. Come on, smartass, one example of Alex doctoring an interview. Just one. Ah, ain't got any. Thought so.

yea, won't have much more to say, you little lier and smearer. Come on, smartass, one example of Alex doctoring an interview. Just one. Ah, ain't got any. Thought so.

I'm not gonna lose time with somebody who only likes to insult

I don’t think that Alex edits his interviews in that manner.

He is certainly disconnected from those that used to visit his forums, oblivious to the importance of discussion over his POV... And he went off the deep end with all of the conspiracy and political BS. But several of them didn’t exactly paint him in the best light, coming across as impulsive and increasingly hostile (i.e. when “stuck in stupid” became his favorite catchphrase), and yet they remain there. Also, you can’t “edit” the unwillingness shown by several of his guests to address the data when confronted by it, especially when they tried to justify it with shallow excuses.

I don't think skeptico is a good source. They edit the interviews and make them in a way to always bias things in pro-paranormal ways. Jeff Long isn't reliable as this REM intrusion idea in the blind was know, yet he denies it.

I don’t think there is any evidence of Alex editing his videos to promote the paranormal. Looking back at my last post, I have no idea why I worded it the way I did. I frequently visit Skeptiko, although I’m not a member, and I think it’s a great way to discover the works of researchers that others refuse to even look at. Don’t use his interviews alone though to form your opinion on the subject being discussed. Look into the guests research yourself and see it in its entirety. As for Dr. Jeffrey Long, you can not say that he has denied the study that Chris has posted. For all we know, he may not have been aware of it when the interview was held. That, or he may know something we don’t. Either way, I think the best course of action would be to do as Tim has suggested and politely send him an email.

I think it has to be a red flag that Long said the congenitally blind didn't have rapid eye movements. It's not just a question of one recent study showing that they do. As far as I can see, that's been known since at least the 1960s:
https://psycnet.apa.org/record/1966-05841-001

“Congenitally blind”, “blind from birth”, etc. are sweeping terms. I would prefer if he could visit us here and explain his stance. I certainly expect a patient suffering from ONH or ONA to have a completely different reaction to REM when compared to one that suffered trauma to the cornea. Both will end up with underdeveloped optic nerves, but the path there is different.

Yes, that's based on the paper I just referred to. But I don't think it refers to REM intrusion, just REM sleep.

And actually the authors' conclusion is that the congenitally blind do produce visual images in their dreams:
“The fact that blind subjects present [rapid eye movements] and that these are correlated with visual dream recall is another result supporting our argument that they do activate visual areas during dream, being able to generate their own visual imagery.”

What exactly are they supposing the visuals to be, though? They even admit that there's no way to know for sure from the dream reports what, if anything, they're "seeing." 

Anyway,I'm not interested in pursuing it. Vicki Umipeg was documented as never having experienced sight. Her optic nerves were withered by too much oxygen in her incubator (she was premature). She says she doesn't dream visually and that's good enough for me (and she's not the only one)

FWIW, everyone has plenty of dreams that they don't remember.

I'm not gonna lose time with somebody who only likes to insult

Naaaa, that victimhood shtik won't work. You just smeared the name of a person of impecable integrity and reputation, accusing him of doctoring his interviews to fit his agenda, without an iota of proof. That says a lot about you.

What exactly are they supposing the visuals to be, though? They even admit that there's no way to know for sure from the dream reports what, if anything, they're "seeing."

That recent paper is behind a paywall, but this older one by the first author surveys the literature and explains some of the thinking:
https://www.uv.es/revispsi/articulos1.05/12-BERTOLO.pdf

Naaaa, that victimhood shtik won't work. You just smeared the name of a person of impecable integrity and reputation, accusing him of doctoring his interviews to fit his agenda, without an iota of proof. That says a lot about you.

If you would have read my original message, you would have noticed the words "I don't think" at the beginning. That is just my opinion on Alex. he is totally invested in conspiracy BS, and he isn't as far as i am concerned a skeptic following facts, but a pure believer.

then his repution isn't as good as you'd like to be. https://pseudoastro.wordpress.com/2012/0...-deceiver/ he has been caught altering transcripts more than once by true skeptics. you sound like a fanatic who wants to believe at all costs.

Now addressing general anesthesia, yes you can dream in it. My mother dreamt during her general anesthesia. It was very far from an NDE, anyway, she saw just some some trees and a non threatening lion chilling there or something like it.
What I trust are EEG readings. Not once, in pubmed or elsewhere, I have found studies showing REM patterns in EEG readings of people during CA. This is confirmed by the latest research by Dr. Parnia. 
So we are really debating over nothing here, There is no proof, machine recorded, hard data proof, of REM sleep patterns during CA. And machine recorded proof beats any anectode.