Dr. Piero Calvi-Parisetti, near-death experience science counters grief |319|

#61
I believe the stories of NDE. I also believe when a schizophrenic tells me that she has been raped with X-rays over a TV set by her neighbor. Both may be imagined or both may be true, and in practice I don't care: my job is to help the patient.
I don't get your point here.
 
#62
I think he's saying what I've seen others say, that he certainly believes people have experienced something, for whatever the reason might be. He just doesn't consider it relevant to the task at hand in most cases.
 
#65
You are right, it is Iatrogenicity, my mistake.
No worries
Flying is way safer than going to the hospital
In some respects that is bound to prove correct because people go to the hospital when they are very ill. To make a fair comparison you'd have to remove all the patients that were certain to die in hospital because of their condition. But if you then consider the rest (who are not in danger of dying) the comparison with an airline pilot is reasonable. If you (as a doctor) administer insulin instead of glucose to reverse hypoglycaemia you can kill your patient.

If the pilot makes an error trying to land, he can kill a plane-load of people.

The moment we put you in coma till the moment you regain consciousness is called an anaesthetic
But what about local anaesthetic, no coma there

What is a mainstream doctor ?
Take a wild guess. Or ask Alex.
Wouldn't I be better off not taking a wild guess ? I would have thought all MD's are mainstream, that is they adhere by and large to the rules of the General Medical Council or whatever governing body it is in the country where you practice medicine. Other doctors might be "quacks" (struck off or phonies) or I guess "witch doctors" who claim to be able to treat people.

Your question is obviously rhetorical, and you probably got the analogy I used to illustrate my point. But FYI there are two scenarios where anaesthetists deal with mental patients and their conditions. First, surgical conditions do not discriminate between people with mental disease or without. Schizophrenics (as well as borderlines, depressives, people with anxiety and other mental issues) also get appendicitis, cholecystitis, broken bones and other things that need to be surgically fixed. Second, some psychiatric patients undergo electro-convulsive therapy for their conditions, which requires anaesthesia and therefore the involvement of an anaesthetist.
I get that but in administering anaesthesia I guess you wouldn't be directly treating someone's mental health issues, would you. ? I mean if a person came into your OR to have their appendix removed (and was known to be psychotic), you wouldn't be expected to try to deal with his psychosis before you put him under surely ?

Without me personally - nothing different, except for venting your irritation and demonstrating how smart you are. Without medicine and doctors - in some instances you could die, in some you could suffer and in some - nothing different, except for venting your irritation and... demonstrating how smart you are.
Without all kinds of things and the people that produce them we could suffer and die. Without the elements of water, food, sewerage, power and the people who produce them,the list is long. I'm not trying to demonstrate how smart I am. I don't think I am particularly smart, small dog but if you remember, you accused me of bullshit ( I always try my best never to do that......) and that's why I replied in what might be a slightly unfriendly manner. Anyway thank you for the keep well wishes but at the moment I'm suffering from a bloody awful hangover from last night which I will attempt to treat with some "hair of the dog."
 
Last edited:
#68
Which is fair. If there was well-accepted conclusive proof of some reality pointed to by those sort of experiences, this forum would have no need to exist.
"Well accepted" is trivial. Most academics still act as if there was some sort of looming threat that the Church is going to make a comeback and force us all back into their grip. Times have changed, but they are still stuck in the enlightenment, hence the status quo.

If there wasn't such an aversion to change, we surely would have some sort of "well accepted" something, be it for or against. But, since the response is still to look away, we are depending on a small set of ill-funded and gung ho researches and the acolytes that rebuff them for religious concerns.

In such an environment, progress is expected to be slow; in fact, it is actually amazing that there has been some sort of progress *at all*.
 
#69
I'm not strictly talking about academics when I say "well-accepted". I'd wager a decent percentage of people in general may certainly be interested in the phenomena but nonetheless are cautious to even discuss them for fear of others around thinking they're kooky.
 
#70
I agree. But, most of the time, the masses respond to conditioning. Even when they think that they are being rebellious by opposing the establishment, most end up following the trail that is already there (many of the so-called "free thinkers" end up being a great example of pretentiousness and irony). Thus, they are merely reflecting what the academics feed them, either directly or by proxy.
 
#71
thx. found this one really interesting:
Yeah - that particular account rather sticks in your mind - doesn't it!

I'd love to know whether the patient in question had a terrible past!

The thing about that website , is how matter of fact it is, "y'all knew it was coming, didn'y ya?" - these people encounter these phenomena day in day out!

David
 
#72
I don't get your point here.
Context.

Alex Tsakiris said:
Hold on, I have to interrupt you. It’s not ultra-skeptics. Ultra-skeptics are the front men. They’re the barking dog on the chain. This is mainstream medicine; mainstream science that wants it this way. You can’t run their business with your air-fairy alternative model. It doesn’t make money. It doesn’t make the trains run on time. It doesn’t do any of that stuff. So forget about the skeptics; they’re just a sideshow. The people behind the skeptics, mainstream medicine, wants this the way that it is. Science wants this the way that it is or they’re out of business otherwise.

small dog said:
I can assure you of one thing: vast majority of doctors want their patients to get well. Not for the money - we get paid anyway - but because that's what we do. I believe the stories of NDE. I also believe when a schizophrenic tells me that she has been raped with X-rays over a TV set by her neighbor. Both may be imagined or both may be true, and in practice I don't care: my job is to help the patient. That's why cheap shots at "mainstream doctors who only do things for money" irritate me. There are different opinions on various subjects, and there is nothing wrong to be passionate about something; if he does not agree with someone it does not make him "a barking dog". When it comes to consciousness nobody has definitive proof of anything, so it all comes to personal beliefs.
 
Last edited:
#73
Although I agree that the subject of NDE's should be helpful to those close to death, or to their loved ones, I don't think it always is.

A friend of mine had to endure the protracted death of his wife from cancer. While she was still alive, I decided to talk to him (on his own) about NDE's, and what they presumably mean. Unfortunately, it was a huge mistake, and he got quite upset about the subject - so I said I would not mention the subject again unless he did, and so far he hasn't.

I may, of course, simply not be good at such conversations.

David
Do not blame yourself David. I have had similar experiences many times. Some people can become very upset by any mention of NDEs. And not just materialists. Religious believers too can be offended by mention of NDEs. In my personal life I have learned to be very cautious about mentioning them; and if I do mention them I have a series of verbal caveats I routinely append so as to lessen the possibility of a negative reaction.
 
#74
I know that in my own case the discovery of NDE literature was a watershed event in my life
But I also know that for many it is not. On the contrary many have a very negative response to the issue - and for many different reasons
As I said above, even religious people can find NDEs objectionable
So to answer Alex's question.... It all depends on the person being helped
There are some who will benefit and others who will not
 
#75
I know that in my own case the discovery of NDE literature was a watershed event in my life
But I also know that for many it is not. On the contrary many have a very negative response to the issue - and for many different reasons
As I said above, even religious people can find NDEs objectionable
So to answer Alex's question.... It all depends on the person being helped
There are some who will benefit and others who will not
I think the motivation is sound- you were trying to ease your friend's pain. I prefer people to open the conversation these days no matter how much I think I might be able to help.
 
#76
Do not blame yourself David. I have had similar experiences many times. Some people can become very upset by any mention of NDEs. And not just materialists. Religious believers too can be offended by mention of NDEs. In my personal life I have learned to be very cautious about mentioning them; and if I do mention them I have a series of verbal caveats I routinely append so as to lessen the possibility of a negative reaction.
What I think what amazes me more than the negative reaction, is the non-reaction. I have a bit of a hard time understanding how folks would have no interest in NDEs (or psi). As seemingly transient, mortal beings, I guess what's going to be on the next episode of the Kardashians is more important than, whether, or not, we may be spiritual, eternal beings

I guess I do understand it (I've been there myself in the past), but it really is a strange thing ...
 
#79
I have a bit of a hard time understanding how folks would have no interest in NDEs
I often think the problem is really just that ..."they".. ( the great unconvinced) can't actually see the consciousness/soul/spirit/whatever leaving the body and naturally "they" demand to know WHY they can't.... if there is ACTUALLY something exiting the body. Can't see it, it's not there.

Switch now to the people actually having the out of body experience and there seems to be no problem accepting it as a genuine separation of consciousness. If everyone had the experience wouldn't it be case closed ?

At the very least when our turn comes, we will all believe that we are leaving our bodies behind. We will all believe that our dead relatives are waiting there for us. I can't see much of a difference, personally
 
Last edited:
Top