An NDE to sink your teeth into

One of the better known reports of veridical perception during a near-death experience is the "dentures case." Briefly, a Dutch patient was brought to the hospital in critical condition. During the course of his resuscitation, his dentures were removed. Days later, he saw the male nurse who had taken the dentures and instantly recognized him, recalling that he had seen the nurse take the dentures out of his mouth. The nurse was stunned, as he did not think there was any way the patient could have seen him -- or seen anything -- in his condition.

Naturally, many questions have been raised about this case, and attempts have been made to debunk it. But in a 2008 article in the Journal of Near Death Studies, Rudolf H. Smit reports on a follow-up investigation that lays to rest most of these questions and casts doubt on the debunkers' efforts.

I became aware of this article when Trev brought it up in a comments thread. It makes very interesting reading, and I can only summarize it here.

Smit's main concern is responding to skeptic Gerald Woerlee, an anesthesiologist who has written extensively about NDEs. Woerlee wrote:

The patient van Lommel and colleagues described was conscious as a result of efficient cardiac resuscitation. He could see and he could hear, because when resuscitation is this efficient, the senses of hearing and sight are restored. The residual effects of extreme oxygen starvation on his brain paralyzed him, making it impossible for him to move or speak, so he was unable to tell those resuscitating him to continue. The effects of oxygen starvation meant he felt no pain, and also aroused his OBE. He felt his dentures being removed, and he heard them being placed in a metal drawer; a metal drawer opening and closing makes a very typical sound, and metal bedside cabinets are standard hospital furniture in The Netherlands. His eyes were partially open, or were opened every now and then to check pupil size as an indication of brain oxygen starvation; so he was able to see [the nurse] and others in the room.

Smit tracked down the original interview with the nurse, and eventually located the nurse himself. Through these sources he was able to determine that Woerlee's conjectural reconstruction of the event did not match the facts as reported by someone who was there.

First, the patient does not appear to have been conscious at all in the early stages of the resuscitation, when the dentures were removed. He was brought in on a cold night, comatose and suffering from hypothermia. Asked by the original interviewer if the patient showed any responsiveness at this stage, the nurse replied emphatically:

No, no! Truly, the man was brought in more dead than alive. He even showed post mortem lividity [pale bluish discoloration] and we all had the feeling: what for heaven’s sake are we doing here? because the man was ice cold, had been outside in that meadow for no one knows how long, and he looked very bad. He also had no pupillary reflexes whatsoever, which is a clear sign that the supply of oxygen to the head had stopped....

After about 15 minutes of reanimation we all were convinced that we were working on a dead man. There was no life in the body. Then one gets the feeling: what am I doing here? This patient is actually dead.

Note that the nurse made the point that the patient had no pupillary reflexes - i.e., his pupils were fixed, dilated, and unreactive. Smit summarizes:

... the patient’s eyes were closed from the time he arrived comatose at the hospital until after his transfer to the ICU except when medical personnel opened them occasionally to check for pupil response and found none, indicating that even then he could not see.

What about Woerlee's conjecture that the patient could have heard a metal drawer sliding shut, and thus known that the dentures had been placed in a drawer? Besides the fact that the patient was reportedly comatose, showing no signs of life whatsoever, there is an additional problem with this thesis - namely, the dentures were not stowed in a drawer at all.

In the original interview, the nurse explained:

At the time when he had to be intubated so to as to apply artificial respiration, it appeared he still had his dentures in. So I took those dentures out and put them onto the crash cart, that is, a small cart that is always in that reanimation room and onto which all sorts of infusion bottles and medicines are placed. Yes, actually all you need for a reanimation can be found on that crash cart. The reanimation required, in all, more than an hour.

So the dentures were removed prior to the commencement of serious efforts at resuscitation. Moreover, they were placed on the crash cart, not in a drawer. But could the patient have heard a drawer sliding shut in the cart? No, said the nurse; there was no drawer; the dentures were deposited on a shelf on the cart. Because it was a sliding shelf, the interviewer asked a useful follow-up question:

Q: This sliding shelf, did you pull it out? Could he have heard that?

Nurse: No, that sliding shelf was already pulled out. We used it for preparing syringes, bottles, that sort of thing. I distinctly remember to have smacked the upper and lower dentures upon that wooden sliding plate only to get rid of them and next continue with the intubation and reanimation.

The cart in question was "unique in the entire hospital," according to the nurse. "Nowhere else in the hospital was such a crash cart available." Nevertheless, days later, the patient described the cart in accurate detail. The nurse remembered the exchange:

He said: ‘‘You were there when I was brought into the hospital, and you removed my dentures from my mouth and put them upon that cart that was there.’’ And he described the cart exactly as it was: ‘‘Yes, there were all sorts of bottles on it, and it did rattle a lot, and there was also a sliding plate upon which you put the dentures.’’

That wasn't the only detail the patient recalled. Smit summarizes:

During [the nurse's] conversation with him, [the patient] described the resuscitation room in detail. It was a very small room. At the right side of the bed was a small niche containing a wash basin, with disinfectants and related things. Next he could also describe where a mirror was. At the left side was the cart containing various equipment. There was also a narrow metal cabinet wherein infusers and infusion pumps were stored. Apparently [the patient] could remember everything perfectly well.

From the original interview:

He described this as seeing his body lying on the bed. He found that very strange. He saw his body from the spot where that steel cabinet was, and that was in the corner of the room. He also said that he was floating above us and saw us being busy with his body. But at the same time he also saw me sitting on top of him, and he also felt that. He had truly felt the pressure on his body and the pain it caused.... Yes, indeed he felt me sitting upon him. I certainly did that while administering heart massage. But we also made use of a heart massage pump. And that is a machine that causes enormous pain. And that is what he told me. He felt the pain, and did try to tell me that. But I saw no reaction in his body; his eyes were shut and during checking the pupils they did not show any response, let alone any sign of fear.

The fact that the patient felt pressure on his chest indicates that he did have some sensory perception in his physical body, which could help the skeptics' case. But remember that all this happened after the dentures had been removed and the resuscitation was under way.

In the more recent interview, the nurse restated his story to Smit's colleague Titus Rivas and clarified a few points. Smit summarizes:

[The nurse] was adamant in stating that [the patient] had not shown any sign whatsoever of being conscious at the time [when he arrived at the hospital] . He was clinically dead, period: no heartbeat, no breathing, no blood pressure, and ‘‘cold as ice.’’ The ambulance personnel had tried to carry out some reanimation while driving to the hospital, but without result. Most importantly immediately after [the patient] entered the hospital, [the nurse]  removed the dentures from [the patient's] mouth and intubated him before starting up the entire reanimation procedure. Therefore, [the nurse] categorically stated, any ‘‘normal’’ observation by the patient of his dentures being removed from his mouth was simply unthinkable. [Italics are Smit's]

Smit also makes the point that when this case occurred, twenty years ago, the general public in The Netherlands was largely unaware of NDEs, and the patient -- a steelworker -- seemed to have no knowledge of the subject. In fact, he did not even seem to realize he had had an NDE.

Of course, a case like this can never be airtight, especially after so much time has passed. But the more facile skeptical objections do seem to be belied by the nurse's own testimony.

By the way, the patient's dentures were misplaced in the confusion, and he never did recover them.

Comments

[J9]

Comforting story, Michael. We put our cat down today and are hoping she had her own "DE".

[Roger Knights]

"Of course, a case like this can never be airtight, ..."

Just to play devil's advocate, there is one possible hole in the story. Could a different nurse have informed the patient that his dentures had been removed and also described the appearance of the nurse who removed them? It's not out of the question.

But of course it would be unlikely for the patient to have invented an NDE to account for seeing the nurse who did the removal, instead of being straightforward. And an invented NDE wouldn't account for the other accurate descriptions he made of the room, which the first nurse wouldn't have told him about.

Still, just to cut off this escape hatch, it would be nice if the other nurse(s) involved could be located and interrogated, to verify that nothing of the sort happened.

[Paul]

Since this case happened 20 years ago, even if you could find the other nurse, I doubt that much weight could be given to their testimony. Even statements taken a relatively short time after an event is observed are susceptible to errors in recall.

This is perhaps especially so in this case as the event in question may have held no particular significance for the nurse.

[Roger Knights]

@ Paul:

"the event in question may have held no particular significance"

It wasn't an everyday event. The nurse who was interviewed stated that the team attempted resuscitation for an hour without success, and continued only because a junior doctor was in charge who had not seen many resuscitation attempts before and was afraid to take responsibility for ending one. When the patient showed signs of life, the nurses were amazed. So it was a somewhat memorable event.

On top of that, if one of the other nurses had given the patient a description of the nurse who removed his dentures, he might have recalled that as well. He could give three answers:
I told him.
I didn't tell him.
I don't remember the case.

If he could be located and he fails to say that he told the patient (i.e., if he gives answers 2 or 3), that will strengthen the credibility of this NDE, even though certainty wouldn't be obtained.

[Paul]

Hi Roger

The event does sound out of the ordinary as you mention. I wonder how many resuscitations this nurse conducted in the intervening decades?

Also, the nurse may "think" they recall it but I wonder how much significance one can attach to a statement about the circumstances surrounding a routine event (albeit with non-routine elements) that happened 20 years ago?

The trouble, for me, with events like this is that they are all dependent on the testimony of strangers and not much was recorded at the time (if anything). I view them as interesting anecdotes, and definitely testimony or a kind of evidence I suppose, but not terribly valuable because of the age of the event and the susceptibility of human memory - especially because no statement was taken at the time and no-one looked for alternative explanations when the evidence was still fresh.

Anyway that's my two pennorth.

[Art]

People have had a rope put around their neck and stretched till dead on a whole lot less evidence.

In the end each person will have to read it for themselves and make up their minds. It is irrelevant to me what somebody else believes or thinks.

I'm not sure it matters much when we cross over what we believed. Everyone will be healed when they enter that Light.

[Michael Prescott]

"We put our cat down today and are hoping she had her own 'DE'."

I'm sorry to hear about your pet. It's very difficult to say goodbye to our faithful little friends.

"not much was recorded at the time (if anything)."

In this case, the original interview with the nurse seems to have been recorded pretty soon after the event. Still, the evidence does come down to eyewitness testimony, which can always be disputed.

[Paul]

Hi Art

I would be interested to hear of an account where someone was executed on less or even the same degree of evidence (unless you are referring to the Wild West or medieval England :)).

Although what others believe and think may be irrelevant to you I don't have the same view. I am not sure you meant to say 'irrelevant'. I am certainly interested in why people believe what they do and usually in what they think unless they are clearly unreasonable.

I suspect you are right that what we believe will not alter reality when we pop off. Though perhaps it might make it more difficult to adapt (assuming there is anything to adapt or anything to adapt to).

@MP - thanks for the comment re the timing of the interview. I am not saying it isn't interesting, because it is. I intended to reply to Roger's comment about the second nurse.

[Art]

"I would be interested to hear of an account where someone was executed on less or even the same degree of evidence (unless you are referring to the Wild West or medieval England :))." - Paul
--------------------------------------------

Our jails are full of people who have been convicted on the testimony of one or two witnesses. It all depends on how sincere someone sounds and who the jury believes.

[Art]

"Although what others believe and think may be irrelevant to you I don't have the same view. I am not sure you meant to say 'irrelevant'." - Paul
--------------------------------------------

There is a ton of evidence out there if someone chooses to spend the time to look for it. Someone else may not have spent as much time researching the question as I have and may not know what I know. I keep harping on the connection between NDE's and the holographic universe and quantum physics and it's like only a few people can really understand what I'm talking about. Dr. Ken Ring, Dr. Melvin Morse, Dr. Edgar Mitchell, Michael Talbot, Dr. Oswald Harding have all written about it and it's obvious to me that it has profound implications.

How is it that a housewife from Kansas or a truck driver from South Georgia might come back after their NDE experience and describe it in terms that can only be called "holographic?"

Most recently there was an article in the January 2010 online issue of New Scientist about the blurriness in a holographic projection. I find this interesting because people who have NDEs say that while they were out of their bodies and on the other side that they had more consciousness than normal and it was "clearer than what we normally experience."

This makes sense to me because the blurriness that exists in the holographic projection wouldn't exist in the original holographic film. That is just one example of the connection between NDEs and the holographic universe. There are many others.

[Paul]

I guess what you are saying Art is that plenty of people have been convicted on weaker evidence. This is true, however as the justice systems in much (if not all) of the world are susceptible to error and/or corruption and are widely mistrusted, I don't think this is a good example unless one is trying to show that even honest juries and judges can be thwarted by believing testimony which appears to be true but turns out to be incorrect or incomplete. Anyway I suppose this particular point is going-off topic.

I think plenty of people can understand what you are talking about, it isn't that complicated. It's just that some of us reserve judgement. I don't know whether you are right or not but simply repeating the points isn't going to persuade me for one. Not because the points you are making aren't correct, they may well be for all I know, but because, as has been mentioned here many times, proof probably has to occur on a personal basis through some kind of direct experience. At least for some (amongst whom I number myself) no amount of testimony by a third party is enough for many of us to make the mental and emotional commitment to accepting survival (holographic or otherwise) and that's all there is to it. I need to see it for myself.

Take the example of quantum physics as you suggest. I may read the sources that you cite as evidence backing up your belief. Then I read a counter view. Result: I am unable to form a firm opinion because the evidence appears to be inconclusive.

If my great-grandmother appears in my room in broad daylight and tells me something that I could not have known but which turns out to be 100% correct I will be convinced. I wouldn't expect you to be convinced based on my testimony though you might think it interesting and food for thought, depending on how well you knew me.

[Zerdini]

Thanks Paul for your very intereting insights - Z.

A middle aged man called Paul
Said 'No' when his angel did call
Please go away
I want to stay
I'm living and having a ball

I don't want to meet the Grim Reaper
But he seems to think he's my keeper
Now's not my time
I'm busy with rhyme
He'll just have to dig that grave deeper

[Paul]

I'm not resistant to facts,
but simply reciting the acts,
doesn't give them more weight,
so I'll still hesitate,
before nailing my views to the mast.

[J9]

MP: Thank you for your sympathy. It has been as hard as you say. You may remember, I lost my college roommate at the beginning if the year. I can't compete with all the debaters here, but I can take comfort from some of what is said.

[Tharpa]

When I'm walking down the street
Suddenly to leave my feet
thunder-struck across the street-
It's nice to know I'll be o.k.
Looking down, of course I'll say
I saw this coming all the way-
Going home for All I pray.

So go ahead punk, and make my day.

[Paul]

J9 - you don't need to compete. I view this forum as an opportunity to learn - some of us don't know as much as we think :)

I think is is possible for non-pet owners to underestimate the loss. I lost one of my cats (which I had since 1992) last year. It was dreadful but the emotion often eases over time.

[Trev.]

I think Smit has done an excellent job and I can't see any decent 'what if's' that make sense.

I believe what it shows is that Gerald Woerlee is not only wrong but has also been trying to twist the facts to support his assumptions, simply because he doesn't want survival.

Remember, Woerlee wasn't there and did not interview the male nurse concerned.

[Roger Knights]

Speaking of cat deaths, check out The Cat Who'll Live Forever: The Final Adventures of Norton, the Perfect Cat, and His Imperfect Human by Peter Gethers. (And look at his two earlier Norton books, especially the first, The Cat Who Went to Paris.)

[Trev.]

By the way, Michael,

Thanks for the mention(...when Trev brought it up...)
Fame at last !

[J9]

Thanks Paul, it's great that you had so much time together. You are right though, I've grieved less for people I've loved more.

[Michael Prescott]

"I believe what it shows is that Gerald Woerlee is not only wrong but has also been trying to twist the facts to support his assumption"

From what I understand, Woerlee didn't have access to the original interview, do he didn't have all the facts. I believe he has written a response to Smit, but I don't know if it's been published yet.

[Trev.]

'From what I understand, Woerlee didn't have access to the original interview, so he didn't have all the facts'

As I see it, Woerlee is not a fair minded skeptic. He is a very creative and cunning spreader of mis-information. He put words in the mouth of the prime witness in order to debunk a genuine first class piece of evidence.
The male nurse said(adamant) he removed the dentures before CPR and the thumper machine were started. This is very important! Why ? Because the patient was stone cold dead, no pulse, circulation ..nothing. He could not have seen or heard or imagined anything in that state. Not a chance.

So Woerlee had to ignore that uncomfortable piece of information so he could propose that the thumper machine brought him back to consciousness... just enough for him to see/hear the male nurse removing the dentures.
It didn't happen that way and this case is now almost impossible for the genuine skeptics to refute.

[Kathleen]

Art, just wanted to say I enjoy your posts very much (and this very intriguing blog). I'm not of a scientific background, and I can't quite wrap my mind around the idea of a holographic universe. It reminds me for some reason of some of the concepts in Jane Roberts' Seth books. I do struggle with why there are alternate dimensions/universes in the first place. Philosophically, perhaps it's only to separate the "wheat from the chaff," that this world we're in is to teach us lessons so that we can live in peace in the next. Because while most people are basically decent, there's a rather large percentage I wouldn't want to live among in the next world, no matter how beautiful it may be there. I also know that a lot of people, though not bad people, would not be very happy at all living in a world where they won't be able to one-up each other with material possessions--with the latest car, clothes, etc.--all the symbols of upper status in general. And while these may be basically decent people at heart, I don't fancy hanging around with them for eternity.

[Zerdini]

@Kathleen

Fortunately we will be in a world with people with whom we are compatible so your fears are groundless.

It is virtually impossible for those living in the fourth dimension to convey to us, who are liviving in a three-dimensional world, the reality of their existence.

Nevertheless, from the little we have been able to glean from their communications there is much that is similar to the world we live in and far more that is beyond our comprehension.

We will only know for sure once we pass to the next world.

[Boggle]

"I also know that a lot of people, though not bad people, would not be very happy at all living in a world where they won't be able to one-up each other with material possessions--with the latest car, clothes, etc.--all the symbols of upper status in general. And while these may be basically decent people at heart, I don't fancy hanging around with them for eternity."

So, you want to live in the third world?

[Kathleen]

Thanks, Boggie, almost spit out my coffee on my key board, LOL.

I am sure in third-world countries it's the same, not "Look at my new Lexus," but "Look at my new cow."

[Trev.]

There was a strange doctor called Woerlee
Who took evidence for survival so sorely
He made it his place to debunk every case
Cause the thought of a soul made him poorly.

[Cyrus]

Laugh.

[Trev.]

Thanks, Cyrus,

Not as good as Zerdini's and Paul's me- thinks.

[Cyrus]

That was Trev's post, I'll think of a limerick later though.

[sbu]

Interesting article, but it seems unlikely that the nurse is able to remember exact details from an 8 years old event. People working in emergency care receives loads of people in critical condition - e.g. how should she be able to remember details about the drawer etc. when working in a high stress situation probably with adrenaline pumping.

[Zerdini]

Good limerick, Trev, and most apposite to the thread.

[Michael Prescott]

"it seems unlikely that the nurse is able to remember exact details from an 8 years old event."

I haven't been able to determine when the dentures case occurred. You would think this would be an easy piece of information to track down, but I haven't found it anywhere. As a result, I'm not sure how long after the event the nurse was interviewed for the first time. Is your figure of eight years based on a knowledge of the date of the original incident?

[Matthew_X]

(Feeling the Body While Out of Body)

When I was 15 I had an out of body experience. I suddenly found my self just standing in my room and everything was red shifted in my vision. I looked behind me and saw myself laying on the bed. I could feel the pressure of the bed and the sensation of breathing at this same time as being aware in a seperate location. Besides seeing myself on the bed everything felt normal. Normal thoughts feelings, normal feeling of a body etc. I had no idea what an O.B.E. was so scared I had died I rushed back in my body!

I believe that discarnate you could possibly still feel your body somehow.

[Trev.]

Thankyou most kindly Zerdini,... I had to go next door to ask a friend, Dick Shonnery, to enquire as to the meaning of 'apposite.' :)

Michael,
Woerlee(inferred from Smit's paper) does not dispute the original testimony from the male nurse)otherwise he wouldn't have spent all his considerable efforts to debunk it. He is now in a quandary. His first attempt at getting rid of the body has failed. The arm is sticking out of the freezer.

What to do , WHAT TO DO ?

[Tharpa]

Once in post-mortem ascension
One enters the seventh dimension-
Though the weather is fine
I do miss my wine
And other tid-bits too tawdry to mention.

[.]

Or perhaps:

I rose in post-mortem Ascension
Right up to the Seventh dimension
Though the weather here's fine,
I do miss my wine
And tit-bits too tawdry to mention.

[Dan]

Has anyone seen this on Youtube?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RfBU4eZnQPc
There are 3 parts.

I found Trudi's NDE to be rather interesting.

[sbu]

I haven't been able to determine when the dentures case occurred. You would think this would be an easy piece of information to track down, but I haven't found it anywhere. As a result, I'm not sure how long after the event the nurse was interviewed for the first time. Is your figure of eight years based on a knowledge of the date of the original incident?

I assume the incident must have been at least 8 years old as this case was reported in this NDE study (http://profezie3m.altervista.org/archivio/TheLancet_NDE.htm) first published in The Lancet in 2001. It might even be as old as 16 years as the group who had an NDE was followed for 8 years after their emergency incident.

After having read the original article I think the critism by Gerald Woerlee is also quite vague. If he is correct that patients immediately regain some semi-consciouness - incidents like this should be reported much more frequently.

Another argument supporting the nurse and Smit is the fact that the resuscitation took more than 15 minuts. It's my understanding that surviving more than 10 minuts without oxygen to the brain is very rare - so the case could very well be an unique incident for the nurse and the other people involed.

[Paul]

sbu - I suspect resuscitation may sometimes take more than 15 minutes to achieve. It would be interesting to hear about this from an ER/A&E nurse/doctor.In one famous case - Michael Jackson, apparently they tried to resuscitate him for over an hour.

[Michael Prescott]

"I suspect resuscitation may sometimes take more than 15 minutes to achieve."

The patient's hypothermia was a big factor in allowing him to be resuscitated after being clinically dead for so long.

"I assume the incident must have been at least 8 years old as this case was reported in this NDE study ... first published in The Lancet in 2001."

Smit says the 2001 Lancet article "was based on two documents. The first document was an article dated August, 1991, and written by Vincent Meijers, the third author of the Lancet article (van Lommel et al. 2001) where his name appeared as Meyers. He based the article on an interview he had conducted with another nurse who was aware of the reanimation procedure of the patient whose
dentures had been lost. Meijers’s focus in this paper was NDEs in general, and he made only brief reference to the denture anecdote.

"The second document was an interview transcript dated February 3, 1994. Ap Addink (A.A.), at the time a staff member of Merkawah Foundation who specialized in doing in-depth interviews with NDErs and other people, conducted this interview. On February 2, 1994, he spoke at length with the nurse who had removed the patient’s
dentures ..."

So the original interview with the nurse who removed the dentures took place in 1994, while the incident itself must have happened in 1991 or earlier.

If it happed in 1991, then there was a gap of about three years between the incident and the first interview. But I don't know if it happened in 1991 or years before. This seems like an important detail, yet it is not one that has ever been reported, to my knowledge.

[Trev.]

'This seems like an important detail'

On the face of it, yes. But this male nurse was an impressive and very reliable witness ...and Gerald Woerlee is not calling into question the main facts of the case.

Basically, Woerlee's position is doomed to fail because now he is going to have to change the basis of his previous objections. And that would reveal him as nothing more than a determined debunker.

[Michael Prescott]

Keith Augustine informs me that the dentures incident took place in 1979! This is quite a long time before the first interview with the nurse (1994) and certainly should have been noted in Smit's article.

[Michael Prescott]

P.S. I guess this explains why Smit tells us that few Dutch people were aware of NDEs at the time. In 1979 NDEs had not yet been massively popularized through hit movies like "Ghost."

I can't help thinking that Smit withheld this piece of information because he knew it would weaken his case.

[Trev.]

'Keith Augustine informs me that the dentures incident took place in 1979'

Michael, We are dealing here with a dispute between Gerry Woerlee and R Smit/Titas Rivas. IMHO, It wouldn't matter if the case had happened yesterday, as far as Keith Augustine was concerned. Keith would still prefer the reductionist explanation.

Smit did not publish this case first, it was of course Pim Van Lommel who referred to it in the Lancet paper. Van Lommel's take on it was correct(according to the prime witness)but Gerald Woerlee obviously thought he could debunk it with his professional and creative expertise. As I understand it, this nurse has never changed his account of the events which was also witnessed by other nurses.

It is very telling that Keith found it necessary to contact you.

[Kris]

this is a simple question. Who knows more about this situation. The nurse who was there or Dr Woerlee. To ask that question is to answer it.

[Michael Prescott]

"it was of course Pim Van Lommel who referred to it in the Lancet paper."

Yes, but the point is that the first interview with the nurse took place in 1994, so if the incident itself took place in 1979, that's a gap of fifteen years. I think this gap constitutes a weakness (not necessarily a fatal weakness) in the case.

Do I think the nurse could remember the event accurately after fifteen years? Yes, it's possible. I believe I have an accurate memory of a meaningful event that occurred to me in 1996. That was almost fifteen years ago.

But it would clearly be better if the interview had been conducted soon after the event.

And I do think it's unfortunate that Smit neglected to include this relevant piece of information in his article. Why omit it, except to make the case seem stronger than it is?

[Roger Knights]

Details matter in all iconic cases. The more of them we have, and the fewer loose ends there are, however minor, the more righteously we can claim that NDEs deserve to be taken seriously.

[Trev.]

The first relevant interview(of a different nurse who knew about the case) was by Meyers in 1991.

Lets wait for the reply (to Woerlee's latest paper) by Smit/Rivas apparently to be published soon in the JNDS.

[Vitor]

Trev,

is Woerlee's latest paper online?

Best wishes,
Vitor

[Trev.]

Hi, Ben. That's true of course.

Vitor,

I believe it is in the journal of near death studies but I haven't seen(read it)it. Rudolf Smit would be the man to tell you where to find it. He posted his email in the skeptiko forum(Sam Parnia) which is..

rhs@rudolfhsmit.nl

[Michael Prescott]

Sorry to be a killjoy, but I deleted a couple of the limericks because I thought they were inappropriate.

[G.M. Woerlee]

What a fascinating number of reactions and entries to a blog about something which people can only speculate because the articles are as yet unpublished.

To begin with – I enjoyed the appalling limericks.

But now is the time to set the matter straight as regards some details, because the discussion on this blog is somewhat unproductive.

I believe my reaction to Rudolph Smit’s 2008 article will be published in the Summer JNDS. My reaction was first submitted in January 2009. The undoubtedly devastating reaction of R.Smit has taken somewhat more than a year to compose. I must confess to being just as interested in his reponse as all you bloggers. These articles are under embargo until publication.

Now for the facts of the case.
- The incident occurred late in 1979.
- The man collapsed in a field near the village of Ooij which is located near Nijmegen in the Netherlands.
- He was resuscitated in the Canisius Hospital in Nijmegen in the Netherlands.
- Pim van Lommel was not associated with the case at all. He commenced work in the east of the Netherlands in 1980, and in quite a different city – Arnhem.
- The man concerned died soon after discharge from hospital.
- Pim van Lommel learned of this case from an incomplete interview of TG performed during the 90’s circulating in the NDE association of the Netherlands.
- Lommel published a very abbreviated account of this story in his 2001 Lancet article, without referring to the year in which the incident occurred.
- Titus Rivas and R.Smit conducted a very extensive, thorough, interview with the nurse (TG) in charge of the nursing aspects of the resuscitation during the course of 2008. This is 29 years after the event!
- The transcript was published in the Autumn 2008 edition of “Terugkeer”, the journal of the Netherlands NDE association. It is in Dutch, but maybe R.Smit or another will translate it into English for you one day. I will not.
- The interview corresponds with the earlier interview, and this incident was evidently a landmark event in the nurse’s life. In my opinion it is an accurate account of the events as remembered and perceived by TG at the time.
- It is a very revealing account, in that it clearly demonstrates the physiological basis of the NDE and OBE story.

However, you will have to wait for the JNDS article to read this explanation, and R.Smit’s devastating reply which I too am patiently awaiting. In the meantime try and see if someone will translate the transcript for you.

G.M. Woerlee

[Trev.]

That's okay , Michael, it's your blog. I merely disagree with, not dislike Gerald Woerlee.

[Trev.]

My above comment was posted before I saw Dr Woerlee's comment.

Dr Woerlee,

The man was dead. When I was a lad, I occasionally used to sneak into my fathers bedroom and pinch some small change from his pockets. He was not dead, merely asleep and he could have heard the slight rattling of the coins. I was never apprehended.

[Trev.]

'the discussion on this blog is somewhat unproductive'

Yes, Gerald, It might me unproductive if your business is trying to disprove survival. Some of us, however are open to the possibility of such... and this case is extremely evidential.
Forgive me, but I don't trust your motives.

[Paul]

His motives are irrelevant surely what matters are the facts in this case?

[Trev.]

And the facts are, the man was dead(TG Prime witness)
Dr Woerlee was not there.

[Michael Prescott]

Dr. Woerlee wrote,

"The interview corresponds with the earlier interview, and this incident was evidently a landmark event in the nurse’s life. In my opinion it is an accurate account of the events as remembered and perceived by TG at the time.

"It is a very revealing account, in that it clearly demonstrates the physiological basis of the NDE and OBE story."

Very intriguing! I'm now more interested than ever in seeing how the debate between Dr. Woerlee and Rudolf Smit plays out.

Many thanks to Dr. Woerlee for contributing his clarifying comments to this discussion.

[Roger Knights]

Here's an interesting show on Coast-to-Coast AM (talk radio) tomorrow:

"Sunday August 8, 2010

"Dutch Cardiologist Dr. Pim van Lommel was shocked by the number of his patients who claimed to have near-death experiences. He concludes that these are authentic experiences cannot be attributed to imagination. Ian Punnett hosts."

He is the author of the new book, Consciousness Beyond Life: The Science of the Near-Death Experience

Here's a reviewer's comment:

“Most books on NDEs only touch on some of the ideas that are presented, but the distinctive contribution of this book is that it presents and defends a complete theory of consciousness.... What a brilliant, erudite and magisterial book. A magnificent achievement, clearly a landmark book.” (Dr. Kenneth Ring, Professor Emeritus of Psychology, University of Connecticut )

[Roger Knights]

PS Broadcast time is 10 pm to 2 am Pacific.

[Trev.]

I have the book which is very good value(some 360 pages) There is a lot in it. Personally, I would have liked a bit more personal testimony. I wanted to hear more from these Dutch experiencers, see some of their faces etc as in the Fenwick's 'The truth in the light' etc.
There may of course be a cultural(Dutch) reason for that(I don't know what it could be, come to think if it, the Dutch are very outgoing)
Nonetheless, If you like books on NDE's your bound to buy it.

[Paul]

"The facts are - he was dead"

Trev - that may have been one of the facts. We don't actually know that for certain, although from his condition I'd be prepared to accept he wasn't conscious. In any event the key issue here is whether the patient could have uncovered the story about his teeth through any other mechanism and whether the report of the Nurse is reliable.

Simply ignoring the facts and jibing at Dr Woerlee doesn't add much value in my opinion. It would be more helpful to challenge his assertions in a rational manner.

Irrespective of Dr Woerlee's motivation agreed facts are all we have to base our conclusions on.

[Trev.]

Paul,
As a fence sitter you need to realise that
Gerry Woerlee doesn't dispute the testimony of the male nurse, only the interpretation of it.
In other words, the information was NOT gleaned from leaked conversations. If that had been the case, do you think that Woerlee would have spent all this time carefully preparing a physiological basis for this experience?

I wasn't aware that I'd made any real jibes at Dr Woerlee. The limericks etc were a bit of fun which i would be more than happy to have at my own expence. Feel free. There's quite a bit you can do with a silly name like Trevor(Trev)
If the so called jibe you are referring to is stating that I don't trust his motives...well that's true. He is a determined debunker and will not accept an alternative explanation under any circumstances.

All that said, I think the guy can be quite charming and his interviews on skeptiko have demonstrated that.

[Trev.]

Just to add, the man was dead. When he arrived at the hospital he had no pulse or circulation. That is a DEAD Parrot, a parrot that is most definitely dead. Not merely unconscious. It can of course sometimes be sucessfully re-animated but if no medical intervention takes place, it stays dead.

[Paul]

Thanks for the reply Trev. I am not sure what you mean by 'fence sitter'. It sounds like it might be somewhat perjorative, I will assume it isn't intended that way.

Having read a great deal of material on the subject of survival, I think there is definitely a case to support it. I am not however convinced beyond reasonable doubt. Unless you have had some direct personal experience, which you may or may not, I do not see how you can be so confident.

In this matter I do not see jumping off the fence without sufficient evidence as a matter for pride. You may have such evidence in your possession, I do not.

In addition, I would say describing him as a "cunning and creative spreader of misinformation" is a jibe by any measure wouldn't you?

As for whether the man was DEAD on arrival, I think that is something of a moot point. I haven't read the medical notes but I would think these days the medical technology would detect signs of life that might not have been detected in 1979.

At this stage, this entire example looks like an easy target for sceptics. This does not mean it was not a genuine example of an NDE, however the way to challenge it is perhaps to demolish one's opponents' line of argument piece by piece and to have a meaningful discussion of the bare facts without personal remarks.

Even if Dr Woerlee is not genuine, adopting this tactic will soon expose whether his conclusions are valid based on the evidence agreed.

If he agrees that the testimony of the male nurse if correct then it is possible to discuss the interpretation of it. At the end of the day if his conclusion is illogical it will be exposed in the debate won't it?

If a person wishes to remain stubborn in the face of (apparently) incontrovertible facts that's their problem. So far in this discussion, and admittedly I have not read the source material, I have not seen anything that would persuade me (or any reasonable unbiased person as far as I can see)that I can be certain about what happened, the circumstance or the conclusions.

[Paul]

As an aside Trev - I think I have gone off topic here. My intention was to suggest focusing on the facts where there was a dispute about their interpretation as I think the NDE report is interesting.

As far as I can see, what the nurse claims happened is not necessarily fact. If I was prepared to accept what another person says about survival without examining the alternative explanations, I would have become a Spiritualist a long while ago :). What he says is his interpretation of what he saw and may be subjective (and given the time lag potentially subject to errors in recall and interpretation) wouldn't you say?

[Trev.]

Paul,
Why haven't you read the source material ?

Seems odd to me that you would comment on a paper you haven't read.

'At this stage this entire example looks like an easy target for skeptics'

It doesn't look like that to me, Paul, quite the reverse.

Your position seems to be a safe ... 'I'll make up my mind when I know what the answer is position.' .. Anyone can do that, Paul, but it's not particularly clever.
Let's leave it here, because I don't know you and I don't want to be combative on this blog.
We will know who is right sometime in the autumn, I guess.

[Paul]

I am commenting on the discussion on here - I think I am entitled to do that. Not on the original paper - I made that perfectly clear I think.

If by the 'source material' you mean the study - I have read the response but not the original report. Have you read the original report - if so I'd be interested to read it perhaps you could point me at it?

My position is not intended to be 'safe' I am reserving judgement - which I think is prudent because I don't have enough information.

As an side, are you really suggesting I should 'make up my mind when I don't know what the answer is'? I am not trying to be clever but it is interesting that you are not responding to the questions I raised.

It seems to me that you don't want a discussion you simply want folks to agree with you or keep quite. That won't happen especially on here.

We won't really ever know who is right on this Trev because it is a long time ago and recorded a long while after the event. It may be possible to discount Dr Woerlee's objections but that wouldn't prove the original report was correct and that an NDE has been established.

If you think there is something wrong with the observations I made, why not mention why I am in error like Roger Knight and Michael Prescott did instead of telling me I have no right to offer comment?

[Paul]

For the record I think there is potentially something very interesting going on in this report however the circumstances and time lag make it more difficult to be certain what may or may not have happened. It's a shame but there it is.

Perhaps one of the most unfortunate elements of this report is that we are unable to interview the person who actually experienced the event and it appears, unless I have it wrong, that no proper interview was conducted at the time. In that sense it is hearsay.

We are reliant on the testimony of a nurse (who we do not know much about) telling us what someone (who the nurse did not know well, and whom we did not know at all, and about whom there is very information) told him, several years after the event.

I think that renders the case impervious to a definite conclusion. That doesn't mean it wasn't true but I don't think it is unreasonable to adopt a position of 'don't know' on this one. If I have misstated the situation then I am happy to be corrected.

[Trev.]

'If you think there is somethimg wrong with the observations I made, why not mention why I am in error...'

Your observations are based on your own smug conjecture, Paul.

You seem to see yourself as some kind of community policeman of this blog's comments... without always doing the homework. I can also see how MY comments could be extremely irritating , but can you not see how your's might be ?

When did I say that you had no right to comment?

[Paul]

You do like your snidey personal insults don't you Trevor?

Once again you appear reluctant to respond to the questions I have posed to you and indeed divert attention away from them.

I don't find your comments irritating, I think they are sometimes unhelpful to this discussion in the way that you phrase them. This is something you have demonstrated amply in the above comment.

It seems to me the questions I have raised are reasonable and whether you believe it or not, my interest is genuine.

I would be really pleased to find out that this (or any other NDE) is genuine. I just don't think this one will do it.

I am interested in getting to the bottom of it without the need for insults and personal remarks. Since you are appear to be unable or unwilling to control yourself in that respect, and either cannot or will not read the things you have already written, or respond to reasonable questions, there is very little point in responding further to your comments.

[Trev.]

'Once again you appear reluctant to respond to the questions I have posed to you.'

Pose the questions one by one, Paul, and I will respond to each of them.

You are actually quite a bit of a bully on this(Michael's blog)forum.

'You would be pleasd to find out if any NDE is genuine'
Gee, Paul. It's really important to the world that you might think NDE's actually represent an indication of what it is like to die.
Bugger, I'll revert to agnostiscism until you say it's ok to come out.

[Trev.]

Where did I insult you, by the way. You ARE.. a bully. You hover over every thread like a clever dick, chipping in with your thirty second brain-waves about things you know nothing about.
NDE's are something I do KNOW about and that's why I don't comment on the other threads.

[Michael Prescott]

Jeez, guys. :-(

The threads on this blog have been unusually combative lately. Must be the dog days of summer.

[Roger Knights]

Paul wrote:

"Perhaps one of the most unfortunate elements of this report is that we are unable to interview the person who actually experienced the event and it appears, unless I have it wrong, that no proper interview was conducted at the time. In that sense it is hearsay."

Agreed.

"We are reliant on the testimony of a nurse ..."

Not entirely. Trev said there was another nurse who was interviewed (and presumably gave supportive testimony): "The first relevant interview (of a different nurse who knew about the case) was by Meyers in 1991."

"Irrespective of Dr Woerlee's motivation agreed facts are all we have to base our conclusions on."

"As far as I can see, what the nurse claims happened is not necessarily fact."

That's why the NDE community should make an effort to expand the known factual basis, as I suggested at the start of the thread, by trying to locate the other witnesses to the event. Now that I think of it, it would be good to try to locate relatives of the victim, to whom he might have described what happened. (It MAY be that nothing will be gained from the attempt, or that what is gained is trivial or arguable, but failure to make the effort conveys the impression of trying to declare victory when ones team is ahead, rather than play out the full nine innings. A police department and prosecutor should do a full investigation, rather than stopping when they've built a case against a chosen culprit. Our side should act similarly.)

[Trev.]

Paul,
For what it's worth, I withdraw my comment about you being a bully. That was an unkind thing to say and I don't think you are.

Roger,

R.Smit(the co-author with Titas Rivas) has stated that they will publish a paper in the autumn which they consider to be irrefutable(for any fair minded person)
I will wait for that now.

[G.M. Woerlee]

Dear bloggers,

One last comment. I have for some time maintained a website with a detailed analysis of the factual elements of the extensive, and very good 2008 transcript of the "man with the dentures" case. This provides an enormous amount of factual details referred directly to pages in the transcript.

the address is: http://unholylegacy.woerlee.org/veridical-near-death.php

The facts related by the transcript are the only known facts about this case. They are all we have by which it can be judged.

I cannot give the original transcript because this is copyright of "Merkawah". Moreover, it is in Dutch, so I do not know whether you would be any wiser for this. Perhaps "Merkawah", or R.Smit will provide an English translation. I will not.

This website contains a wealth of all known information about this case together with my analysis. I will not enter into correspondence about it because my days are filled with many other obligations. So for more information and analysis, you will have to wait for my JNDS article and the devatating reply of Smit.

G.M. Woerlee

[.]

How do you Know it's devastating, Gerald ?

[anonym]

.: He's being sarcastic - like one of those bloggers!

[Trev.]

G.M.Woerlee,

Your website contains 'only' a wealth of your materialistic propoganda.

Your explanations and solutions to the problem of the the NDE are absurd.

For instance.

Death bed visions. You are absolutely confident that a mere widening of the diameter of the pupil to admit more light is THE reason for the observed pattern of dying patients remarking on a brilliant light. Even when they are conversing with dead relatives and subsequently die with a happy smile.
I believe that you don't want survival to be true because you have already made up your mind. That's not science, though, Gerald.

[Kris]

Ah remember this " devasting " critique was written by a person who completely misrepresented the nature of the ear plugs used by Pam Reynolds. He "forgot" to mention they were custom made for her and they constantly beeped at about 98 decimels.

[Kris]

Also what in blazes lets Gerald write with any authority whatsoever about religion. What is his relevant background in theology, history or in linguistics to remotely competently evaluate three religions.

Gerald, here is a challenge I made to Keith earlier. I have the money to back it. If you, Keith or any other of the clown cable who support the dying brain theory want to you can take my challenge. I do have the money.

The Challenge

We can settle this question quite simply. We can blindfold you and plug your ears. ( I will make sure the ear plugs completely block sound, no partial getting through, just like the ones with doctors used with Pam Reynolds. I will be nice though and not have them actually beeping loud noises every second). You will still get to be conscious though. I will now do various things in the room, and I will require you to tell me what happened, exactly! If you do this I will give you five hundred dollars.

I am willing to double the offer. Here is now a change for you to make a cool grand. We do all the above to you, and you have to describe what is going on around you like earlier. But seeing it is extra money, I get to find the biggest whiskey bottle and hit you upside the head and knock you out. Come on , according to "skeptics" NDErs do something similar, here is a clear chance to make 1,500 dollars if you past both test. Are you interested in truly testing your worldview and making some cash. If you don’t want the money I can always donate it to whatever charity you see fit. See I think my money is safe for the simple reason unconscious people cannot do what NDErs do! That is why it is a remarkable thing and so far explanations of a dying/stressed brain will not work!
Should I create a third challenge in which the earplugs beep. Let me translates Gerald’s on being too busy to respond. He knows his silly arguments will be blistered by an informed opposition so he is giving himself an excuse to duck out.

[Michael Prescott]

"I will now do various things in the room, and I will require you to tell me what happened, exactly!"

To make it a fair test, you'd have to announce what you're doing in a fairly loud voice, the way doctors and nurses do in an OR. ("I'm beginning the transection of the left fibrial iconoclasm.... Clamping the duodenal terpsichore... I'm now halfway through the disarticulation of the bivalve mollusk..." You know, like that.)

[Kris]

and reading that I didn't have a damn clue what you were talking about and I am fully conscious. :)

[Roger Knights]

Don't forget tonight's Coast-to-Coast talk show with Dr. Pim van Lommel on NDEs at 10 pm Pacific.

[Zerdini]

@Trev:

If by the 'source material' you mean the study - I have read the response but not the original report. Have you read the original report - if so I'd be interested to read it perhaps you could point me at it?

Can you point me to the original source please Trev?

The URL will do thanks.

Z

[Zerdini]

Just to add, the man was dead. When he arrived at the hospital he had no pulse or circulation.

If the man was dead then he couldn't have had a 'near death experience'.

Until the cord connecting the two bodies (physical and etheric) is severed you haven't 'died'.

[Trev.]

Zerdini,
Woerlee's first response to Rudolf Smit's paper is on his website...The Unholy Legacy Of Abraham.

www.unholylegacy.woerlee.org/

You'll have to scroll down the page until you come to 'the man with the dentures'

Ref definiton...He was temporarilly dead, then(Sam Parnia's new term- TDE)

[Trev.]

@Zerdini,

Did you find what you were looking for ?

[Felipe]

Kris -

As I lost my job today, I would like to take you up on the "Pam Reynolds" Earplugs Challenge for the 1500 dollars.

I would be happy to either have you beat me into the preferred NDE state with a whiskey bottle as suggested - or - I'd be agreeable to utilizing other methods for entering an altered state of conciousness as well.

(i.e. - like maybe having Al read selected excerpts from The Holographic Universe by Michael Talbot until the desired change in brain state sets in)

Please let me know how you'd like to proceed - I prefer a cashiers check if possible - and a small deposit in advance would be appreciated.

;-)

[Michael Prescott]

Sorry to hear you lost your job, Felipe.

There's a lot of that going around. :-(

[Felipe]

(I meant ART....not Al...:-)

[Felipe]

Thanks, Michael.... Hopefully my days as a statistic will be short lived..:-)

[Zerdini]

@Zerdini,

Did you find what you were looking for ?

'Fraid not Trev. Is there a URL that goes straight to the source?

[Zerdini]

Ref definiton...He was temporarilly dead, then(Sam Parnia's new term- TDE)

With all due respect to Sam Parnia how can a person be temporarily dead?

"Irreversibility is often cited as a key feature of death. Accordingly by definition it would not be possible to bring an organism back to life; if an organism lives, this implies that it has not died earlier, even if that seemed the case."

[Trev.]

Zerdini,
It's all there on Woerlee's website. He's even made a new section discussing the dentures man. It's right at the top of the page.

[Trev.]

With all due to respect to Sam Parnia how can a person be temporarily dead ?

Cardiac arrest equals death. For cardiologists it's one and the same thing.(doesn't sound right to me either but it is so)
So if you have a cardiac arrest you are dead because you have no pulse no circulation no respiratory effort, nor gag reflex etc.
Because this situation can now be reversed
...the patients can be described as temporarily dead.

[Ben]

Felipe - you really don't want the Talbot treatment, as brain death is less likely to be temporary!

[Kris]

Hey Felipe

No money till after you pass the test :)

Some paranormal group should really create this challenge and see how many "skeptics" sign up to take it.