Getting back to the NDE content!
Robert Mays seems to be stating in a more formal way something that we have all commented on many times on Skeptiko.
1) It is inconsistent to treat NDE's as hallucinations, or indeed as " ‘flashbulb memories’ of hallucinations", when NDE's demonstrably contain factual information about events while they were in progress!
2) Physiological explanations of NDE's are very weak. Also, I would add that these attempted explanations never come to terms with the highly relevant content of NDE's.
I would say that this piece is going to be useful to people starting to explore Skeptiko, because it states the real problem of NDE's in a very concise form.
What is remarkable, however, is the way in which otherwise intelligent researchers have avoided putting 2 and 2 together for so long - and will probably continue to do so!
David