Why We Need Skeptics in the Skeptiko Forum

[Smithy]

@ Smithy: The first issue that I am concerned about here is how should we assess the risk of error of the story in the OP and in your study given the delay in getting the story recorded.

Arouet - of course, no one denies that this story has come in the open long after the event. So, in principle, yes, there is a chance that some statements are not too precise, to say it in a friendly way. We, Rivas and I, have kept that in mind all the time. In other words, we DO realize that the facts could have been distorted or, worse, embezzled, or whatever.

The main point is that Dr Roberto Amado-Catteneo, who was the cardio surgeon who assisted Dr Lloyd Rudy, and was the one standing in the doorway with Rudy discussing the tragic ending of the operation etc.... this Dr Roberto Amado-Catteneo could confirm everything that Lloyd Rudy had said in that video.

In other words, his was/is a corroborating testimony which has in every aspect the ring of truth.
And that should be enough. At the least, it makes the story stronger and thus adds to the pile of already existing veridical cases. But, of course, it is not the ultimate proof you and others are asking for.

In this regard, I do NOT accept alternative "explanations" such as that Rudy and Catteneo concocted the story themselves so as to fool the world. They had and have a reputation to lose.

I don't know whether I have answered your question in a way you wanted me to. If not, then please refrase it, and give examples.

 

[tim]

Tim, you may know of this from New Scientist, 9 March 2013 - Sam Parnia interview. I have the hard copy.

Dick Teresi Aren't NDEs just hallucinations?

Sam Parnia We know from clinical tests that the brain doesn't function after death, therefore you can't even hallucinate. It's ridiculous to say that NDE people are hallucinating because you have to have a functioning brain. If I take a person in cardiac arrest and inject them with LSD, I guarantee you they will not hallucinate.

Thanks, Keith yes I've seen it. I believe that the reductionists have run out of explanations. Nowhere for them to go now except back to the beginning ...which is what they will do, so desperate are they .........I wonder why it's so important to them, but I think I have a few ideas

 

[LoneShaman]

In this case it seems the skeptical hypothesis is that the veridical elements as in post notes is the result of leaked information. So we are to believe that something as obscure and insignificant as the placement of post its for Dr Rudy's other probably unrelated duties, follow up calls and apointments etc... are for some unknown reason is relayed to the patient in passing? Correct me if i missed something.

My next question is, Really? Post it notes?

Meanwhile the patient claims OBE so must be lying or hallucinating. So really the skeptical hypothesis consists of actually two hypothesis.

This is not a controlled study or an experiment, it is quite simple, there are not many alternatives here at all. Dragging methodology and obscuring and obfuscating with 'scientism' the simplicity is pretty typical. It appears as standard cut and paste excuses that are applied arcross the board. If the situation calls for it then a patchwork of very thin hypothesis are then stitched together.

All things equal, the best and simplest answer is it went down exactly as the patient and Dr Rudy say. But all things are not equal are they? Despite the massive volume of people who have died and returned with accounts, veridical or not, controlled study or not.

 

[fls]

You've repeated that twice now in this thread, and I'm confused by it, can you be more precise about what you mean?

I thought I was in post #245? Can you be more specific about what additional information you are looking for that wasn't in that post?

I think anybody reading the statement I've quoted above, who does not have access to Penny's 5 Year Study, or access to Sartori et. al. (2007), would simply assume that the example incidents you mention at the very end of your post #224 were not discussed in the study, nor mentioned by patient 10 at all within the three interview transcripts.

I'm not sure why someone would get the impression that the incidents were not discussed in the study. Regardless, they would know that they were discussed in the 2007 study, and since I provided a link to the full text, it would be difficult to claim a lack of access. :)

The patient makes statements within the interview transcripts which involve the players in those incidents, but not the statements which were remarkably veridical. I made a mistake when I said in post #245 that I had included the statements the patient made about the mouth cleaning (it only has one excerpt).

Obviously, you can't possibly mean that, as patient 10 does mention these incidents within the studies full transcripts, and the 2007 paper... so what is it that you are saying?

I'm saying that the patient's "mention" of these incidents in the full transcripts does not include him mentioning the elements which Penny listed as having remarkable veridicality.

Linda

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I am commenting upon WHY NDE research is at a disadvantage, if you read my post. The problem is that the subject is characterized as pseudo-science by the community of science at large and skeptics (not the members of the discussion that I know of). :) See List of Subjects Characterized as Pseudoscience (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_topics_characterized_as_pseudoscience)

Sorry, I can't find NDE or OBE in that list.

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

Bull.

Which part?

~~ Paul

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

In this case it seems the skeptical hypothesis is that the veridical elements as in post notes is the result of leaked information. So we are to believe that something as obscure and insignificant as the placement of post its for Dr Rudy's other probably unrelated duties, follow up calls and apointments etc... are for some unknown reason is relayed to the patient in passing? Correct me if i missed something.

So you think it is completely impossible that someone asked the patient "Did you see the post-it notes, too?" after the patient started talking about his experiences? And completely impossible that someone might have said "Boy, Dr. R sure had a lot of calls during that surgery." Or even "You should be glad he didn't run off to return his calls after he pronounced you dead!" And of course we are assuming that there is no way the patient could have opened his eyes in the OR.

(I have a friend who is a neurosurgeon. He thought it was interesting that people would interrupt the surgery by bringing phone messages into the OR. And at what point would Rudy pick them up and take them to his office?)

Meanwhile the patient claims OBE so must be lying or hallucinating. So really the skeptical hypothesis consists of actually two hypothesis.

There are possibilities other than lying and hallucinating.

This is not a controlled study or an experiment, it is quite simple, there are not many alternatives here at all. Dragging methodology and obscuring and obfuscating with 'scientism' the simplicity is pretty typical. It appears as standard cut and paste excuses that are applied arcross the board. If the situation calls for it then a patchwork of very thin hypothesis are then stitched together.

In other words, as usual: Don't try to understand what happened. Just go with the fun hypothesis!

All things equal, the best and simplest answer is it went down exactly as the patient and Dr Rudy say.

I must have missed the part where either of them said exactly what they think happened.

~~ Paul

 

[fls]

Indeed, like Tim did, I also communicated with Spetzler. This is the answer I received from him:

"She was under EEG burst suppression which is incompatible with anesthetic awareness".- rfs

My question was related to Woerlee's assertion that Pam had anesthetic awareness.

As for the records, they were thoroughly examined by Michael Sabom and reported about in one of his books.

Sabom states (describing the standstill after describing the initiation of the bypass procedure), "As Pam's heart arrested, her brain waves flattened into complete electrocerebral silence. Brain-stem function weakened as the clicks from the ear speakers produced lower and lower spikes on the monitoring electrogram."

Descriptions of the technique by Sabom published in medical journals describe starting the use of thiopental burst suppression when cardiopulmonary bypass is initiated.

Anyways, my concern was with the idea of depending upon pieces of contradictory information offered by various third-parties. YMMV, but I don't think it is unreasonable to refer back to primary sources instead.

Linda

 

[Smithy]

So you think it is completely impossible that someone asked the patient "Did you see the post-it notes, too?" after the patient started talking about his experiences? And completely impossible that someone might have said "Boy, Dr. R sure had a lot of calls during that surgery." Or even "You should be glad he didn't run off to return his calls after he pronounced you dead!" And of course we are assuming that there is no way the patient could have opened his eyes in the OR.

That is my problem with you, Paul! Your starting point is always: this or that could have happened.... and repeat that ad infinitum, and thus in the end you start believing it yourself.
BTW - the patient's eyes were NOT open during the surgery - they were taped shut.

(I have a friend who is a neurosurgeon. He thought it was interesting that people would interrupt the surgery by bringing phone messages into the OR. And at what point would Rudy pick them up and take them to his office?)

They did not interrupt the surgery. Personnel just sneaked in quietly and stuck a post-it paper on the monitor. At what point would Rudy pick them up.... This is a silly question! Of course, after the job had been done! What else?

There are possibilities other than lying and hallucinating.

Oh really? Just name them, right!

In other words, as usual: Don't try to understand what happened. Just go with the fun hypothesis!

No Paul. This is not a matter of trying to understand what really happened. It is your way of trying to explain these phenomena away.

May I remind you of the discussions we had about Pam Reynolds on the other forum.
I brought in an early (2003) email exchange between Rivas and Pam Reynolds herself. She adamantly explained that she had never seen before an operation room in her life, and that she had not been given a sight-seeing tour in that same operation room. She "would have chickened out" - her very own words.

And what was YOUR response, together with Linda? She MUST have seen such an operation room on television or whatever. (or something of that nature - I will look it up.) In any case, a heavy insult towards Pam Reynolds.

Such a response, Paul, shows your true colors. You are only interested in your own ideology.

 

[Smithy]

Sabom states (describing the standstill after describing the initiation of the bypass procedure), "As Pam's heart arrested, her brain waves flattened into complete electrocerebral silence. Brain-stem function weakened as the clicks from the ear speakers produced lower and lower spikes on the monitoring electrogram."

Descriptions of the technique by Sabom published in medical journals describe starting the use of thiopental burst suppression when cardiopulmonary bypass is initiated.

Anyways, my concern was with the idea of depending upon pieces of contradictory information offered by various third-parties. YMMV, but I don't think it is unreasonable to refer back to primary sources instead.

Linda

So what?! Do you infer from this that Spetzler has been lying? And that you know better, no matter that you were NOT there? Do you think Spetzler was wrong all along, although he was the lead surgeon, although due to his position had to monitor all the time the various instruments (or had someone else do that who then reported to him what was happening?)

When Spetzler makes unequivocally clear that Pam Reynolds was under EEG Burst suppression (hence NO Anesthetic Awareness), then one has to accept that, period.
The same with his very straightforward response to Tim about the moment when Pam had "heard" the cardio surgeon say that her, i.e. Pam's, veins were too small. His question was: did she have a flatline then? Spetzler's answer: YES.

You want proof, Linda - but with this way of questioning all and everything, you will not get anywhere.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

That is my problem with you, Paul! Your starting point is always: this or that could have happened.... and repeat that ad infinitum, and thus in the end you start believing it yourself.

Apparently you live in a world where this or that never happens.

BTW - the patient's eyes were NOT open during the surgery - they were taped shut.

Okay.

They did not interrupt the surgery. Personnel just sneaked in quietly and stuck a post-it paper on the monitor. At what point would Rudy pick them up.... This is a silly question! Of course, after the job had been done! What else?

So had he picked up the post-it notes before he came running back in to try to revive the patient?

I really can't imagine why a surgeon would want post-it notes in the OR while operating, rather than sitting on his desk when he returned to his office, but anyway. Did the personnel go to all the bother of cleaning up and donning scrubs?

Oh really? Just name them, right!

Manufactured memories, confabulation, and story enhancement. Neither involves lying or hallucinating in the usual sense.

No Paul. This is not a matter of trying to understand what really happened. It is your way of trying to explain these phenomena away.

Assuming that certainly does make it easier for you to ignore what I say.

May I remind you of the discussions we had about Pam Reynolds on the other forum.
I brought in an early (2003) email exchange between Rivas and Pam Reynolds herself. She adamantly explained that she had never seen before an operation room in her life, and that she had not been given a sight-seeing tour in that same operation room. She "would have chickened out" - her very own words.

She had never seen an operating room on TV or in a movie?

And what was YOUR response, together with Linda? She MUST have seen such an operation room on television or whatever. (or something of that nature - I will look it up.) In any case, a heavy insult towards Pam Reynolds.

You honestly believe she had never seen an operating room on TV or in a movie? Do you even believe that she could necessarily remember whether she had seen one?

Such a response, Paul, shows your true colors. You are only interested in your own ideology.

And no one else in this conversation has an ideology.

~~ Paul

 

[fls]

So what?!

That's a good question. Sabom contradicts what Tim says that Spetzler says. And what Tim says that Spetzler says contradicts other statements from Spetzler. What would you infer from that?

Do you infer from this that Spetzler has been lying?

No. I would first wonder if something has been misunderstood by people reporting on what Spetzler said.

And that you know better, no matter that you were NOT there? Do you think Spetzler was wrong all along, although he was the lead surgeon, although due to his position had to monitor all the time the various instruments (or had someone else do that who then reported to him what was happening?)

When Spetzler makes unequivocally clear that Pam Reynolds was under EEG Burst suppression (hence NO Anesthetic Awareness), then one has to accept that, period.
The same with his very straightforward response to Tim about the moment when Pam had "heard" the cardio surgeon say that her, i.e. Pam's, veins were too small. His question was: did she have a flatline then? Spetzler's answer: YES.

You want proof, Linda - but with this way of questioning all and everything, you will not get anywhere.

All I'm suggesting is that instead of spending (wasting) time trying to figure out who may have misunderstood or lied, who remembered or misremembered, etc., etc., primary sources would be a more reliable way to get information. Is this a reasonable suggestion?

Linda

 

[tim]

Sabom states (describing the standstill after describing the initiation of the bypass procedure), "As Pam's heart arrested, her brain waves flattened into complete electrocerebral silence. Brain-stem function weakened as the clicks from the ear speakers produced lower and lower spikes on the monitoring electrogram."

Descriptions of the technique by Sabom published in medical journals describe starting the use of thiopental burst suppression when cardiopulmonary bypass is initiated.

Anyways, my concern was with the idea of depending upon pieces of contradictory information offered by various third-parties. YMMV, but I don't think it is unreasonable to refer back to primary sources instead.

Linda

No, you're not unreasonable, never :-)....... The primary source is Spetzler and Karl Greene and the team who interviewed her straight away but the interview was not "have you had an NDE?" she just came out with it.

Sabom's account in light and death is not inaccurate but it's not quite the full story which WE will never know because they don't want to say much more about it other than there was NO explanation for it. The story is narrated by Dr Alan Hamilton in the Scalpel and the Soul but he calls her Sarah Gideon and just to confuse matters, Sarah is an amalgam of three patients who all remembered visual and auditory images and conversations when they were in deep coma and worse. Two of them were not aneurysm but Hamilton is using the case of Reynolds and then
mixing it with an observation by another patient who heard a nurse tell surgeons about a yellow cut diamond engagement ring and a lot more
.
She also heard "there she blows" " lets pump this baby back up" which was reintroducing blood circulation so clearly she could not have been conscious in any normal shape or form.

Dr Hamilton also related that neurosurgeons/scientists are beginning to realise there is a lot more to the brain than meets the eye and he didn't mean some unknown brain process as I understood it

Another email that I received from Dr Spetzler (who was also kind enough to respond) was stating that the way Reynolds tells it is not quite right
but that she was flatlined when she heard the conversation.

In the Scalpel and the Soul Dr Hamilton says (approx.) " That's why we all descended on Scotsdale to investigate the case because it was so remarkable (and that did happen) (and they did check the charts (EEG)

This information was all gleaned form very politely and patiently asking,,, and if at first they ignore you (which they have every right to do because who the hell am I after all?) ask again.

 

[Smithy]

I have inserted my comments in blue. To read them you must expand the message below.

Apparently you live in a world where this or that never happens.

S: NO - I live in a world where one begins by trusting people. Only if it becomes abundantly clear that something is not entirely okay, then I will change my mind. Apparently you live in a world where all and everything is the opposite: begin by distrusting people.

So had he picked up the post-it notes before he came running back in to try to revive the patient?

S: No he did not - the posts were still there. And he did not come running in, because he and Catteneo were still standing in the doorway. Only the anesthesist came running in after he was summoned by Dr Rudy.

I really can't imagine why a surgeon would want post-it notes in the OR while operating, rather than sitting on his desk when he returned to his office, but anyway. Did the personnel go to all the bother of cleaning up and donning scrubs?

S: Paul! All people have their own ways of doing things. When Dr Rudy found it best for him to have post-its brought to him and stuck them on the monitor, then that was for him the way he liked it, period. What is so problematic about it? Besides, when the two surgeons were standing in the doorway no other personnel came in to do cleaning or whatever. But there was another assistent busy sewing the patient up.

Manufactured memories, confabulation, and story enhancement. Neither involves lying or hallucinating in the usual sense.

S: I see. Makes sense alright. However, my problem is with your apparent obsession to only focus on such possibilities.

You honestly believe she had never seen an operating room on TV or in a movie? Do you even believe that she could necessarily remember whether she had seen one?

S: SO WHAT? And do you want me to believe that on the basis of such a possible movie, she would have remembered a complete OR in every detail, together with a box of bits, and a bone saw which looked like a tooth brush?

And no one else in this conversation has an ideology.

S: You have - you refuse to seriously contemplate the idea of another realm, and goes on slamming our heads with your implicit message: you are all wrong, folks.

~~ Paul

 

[tim]

Which part?

~~ Paul

Try just under the tail

 

[Max_B]

...

I'm still confused I'm afraid, I don't understand what you are trying to say... Lol... I'll go through this again, and perhaps you can explain in a longer version what you are trying to get over to me. At #224 you said:

"...None of the "veridical" elements of this case which Sartori lists as remarkable in her book (watching the doctor shine a pupil torch in his eyes, watching Penny clean his mouth and then put something long and pink into his mouth, watching the physiotherapist poke her head around the curtain looking very worried) are in the documentation..."​

As I've understood it, you are stating that these 3 examples of veridical elements are not in the documentation. By '...documentation...', I am assuming you mean the transcripts.

But I don't understand how you justify your statement in the light of these quotes from patient 10...

"...I could see everybody panicking around me. The blonde lady therapist boss, she was panicking; she looked nervous because she was the one who got me out in the chair. She hid behind the curtains, but kept poking her head around to check on me. I could also see Penny, who was a nurse. She was drawing something out of my mouth, which looked to me like a long, pink lollipop, like a long, pink thing on a stick – I didn’t even know what that was..."

"...I was speaking to Penny a couple of days afterwards and Penny asked me would I tell her what had happened - so I have. But anyway, I told Penny that I saw something pink coming out of my mouth. Eventually Penny said it wasn't anything pink, it was a mouthwash ... pink sponges to wash my mouth out."

"...the only words I heard were the doctors saying "There's life back in the eye..."

"... I heard voices down below but couldn't make out what they were saying. Only thing is life, something about my eye, life there ... I don't know what he meant by that..."

"...the only thing I know is the doctor said there's life in the eye..."

"...You were there Penny and two doctors. Always sticks in my mind, the doctor wearing the pink shirt. When he came onto the ward you could hear him coming from a mile away, a young boy with studs on his shoes, could see him plain. But you with the lollipop, sponge yes like a mouthwash. [Penny: I can remember doing that but at the time you were completely unconscious and your eyes were closed.] Well I could see that, as plain as I can see you now. [Penny: Did you hear me say I was going to clean your mouth.] No, I didn't hear anything. I was just looking back and could see you doing something with my mouth and seeing this long pink..."

"...I was still going up in the air, I could feel somebody going like this to my eye (puts his finger up to his eye). I eventually looked back and I could see one of the doctors pulling my eye, what for I don't know. Then I saw Penny the nurse drawing a little lollipop out of my mouth like a long pink thing on a stick - I didn't even know what that was..."

"...I told Penny I saw her taking something out of my mouth like a lollipop. Eventually, Penny told me it was a stick for wiping the mouth, like a moisture stick. That to me up there was huge but they're only about an inch square..."

"...I look back where I could feel somebody going like that (touches his eye). That made me look back. What you said about pressing my sternum, I didn't know anything about that. I turned back when the doctor touched my eye, I looked down and could see what was going on. You doing things to my mouth..."

"...I saw people around me. You taking something out of my mouth, around my lips..."​

 

[Smithy]

All I'm suggesting is that instead of spending (wasting) time trying to figure out who may have misunderstood or lied, who remembered or misremembered, etc., etc., primary sources would be a more reliable way to get information. Is this a reasonable suggestion?

Linda

No, it is not. Primary source was Pam Reynolds herself. Spetzler is the second primary source and he corroborated everything that she has said (in a confirming mail to Rivas - of course without her detailed report of what happened "beyond").

But apparently you continue disbelieving them. Which is a bloody shame!

 

[LoneShaman]

I think my summary is acurate, you see just because something is not impossible you can always appeal to something no matter how unlikely. I find that weak and unconvincing. Hallucination, fabrication plus obscure insignificant details not just leaked but force fed by a nurse or someone. Did you see the post its? Did you see the guy run in? Did you see the Drs talking at this point? Gee look at that! Explained!

Basically skeptics are saying it is much like a chinese whisper or how an urban legend might develop, that still manage to form and retain accuracy, even capturing little details while avoiding fabricated false memories and the misinterpretation of potential leaked data.

See how malleable you can get with these speculations? With each case a new custom fit combo is wheeled out the weaker it gets, while those that actually lean to what the actual people having the experience say, are not surprised, it is yet another account, no reason not to believe it really.

 

[tim]

Which part?

~~ Paul

Under the tail

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

I have inserted my comments in blue. To read them you must expand the message below.

If you include your responses in the quoted message, they cannot be quoted. So I'll just pick them up.

Apparently you live in a world where this or that never happens.

S: NO - I live in a world where one begins by trusting people. Only if it becomes abundantly clear that something is not entirely okay, then I will change my mind. Apparently you live in a world where all and everything is the opposite: begin by distrusting people.

It has very little to do with trust and much to do with the fallibility of memory. Proponents always focus on the distrust. I daresay this is because considering the fallibility of memory is to be avoided at all costs.

So had he picked up the post-it notes before he came running back in to try to revive the patient?

S: No he did not - the posts were still there. And he did not come running in, because he and Catteneo were still standing in the doorway. Only the anesthesist came running in after he was summoned by Dr Rudy.

I'm not sure how you know the post-its were still there, but fair enough.

I really can't imagine why a surgeon would want post-it notes in the OR while operating, rather than sitting on his desk when he returned to his office, but anyway. Did the personnel go to all the bother of cleaning up and donning scrubs?

S: Paul! All people have their own ways of doing things. When Dr Rudy found it best for him to have post-its brought to him and stuck them on the monitor, then that was for him the way he liked it, period. What is so problematic about it? Besides, when the two surgeons were standing in the doorway no other personnel came in to do cleaning or whatever. But there was another assistent busy sewing the patient up.

I was just interested in the fact that he would have his messages brought into surgery. It's not a big deal.

Manufactured memories, confabulation, and story enhancement. Neither involves lying or hallucinating in the usual sense.

S: I see. Makes sense alright. However, my problem is with your apparent obsession to only focus on such possibilities.

You mean as opposed to the apparent obsession not to focus on the details at all?

You honestly believe she had never seen an operating room on TV or in a movie? Do you even believe that she could necessarily remember whether she had seen one?

S: SO WHAT? And do you want me to believe that on the basis of such a possible movie, she would have remembered a complete OR in every detail, together with a box of bits, and a bone saw which looked like a tooth brush?.

You think she remembered every detail? I'm not saying that having seen an OR on TV or in a movie explains everything. I'm just questioning the claim that she had never seen one.

And no one else in this conversation has an ideology.

S: You have - you refuse to seriously contemplate the idea of another realm, and goes on slamming our heads with your implicit message: you are all wrong, folks.

I'm happy to contemplate other realms. Are you happy to contemplate the possibility that Rudy's patient learned the three things he said by means other than an OBE? Certainly not, if you're going to keep complaining about details.

~~ Paul