Blog powered by Typepad

« Ether or ... | Main | Getting to the bottom of things »


Excellent limerick Zerdini and most apposite to the thread. I feel I must compose one myself in response to your sublime wit.

There was an old spiritualist named Zerdini,
A remarkable swelled headed 'genie'
One day out at lunch
His brain made a crunch
And he coughed up three pounds of linguini.

Well done,Trev - I like linguini - must remember not to eat too much of it. lol


You ought to restrain yourself from attempting to play devil's advocate on threads with an NDE theme.

You Know bugger all about the subject.

Dueling limericks! Very well done, both you guys.

I have to say that when I read yours, Zerdini, I thought it was top-notch, so when Trevor said he had one too, I expected it to fall flat.

But no! The linguini ending is inspired, if a bit off the wall.

Of course, the great Mensa-denser rhyme, and then ending with a simple "never!" are high-class touches indeed.

Bottom-line, you both cracked me up.

(Did I really just spend ten minutes critiquing two limericks? I've got to take another look at my life.)

Hmmm, dueling limericks ...

Well, there's nothing nerdy about this blog!


Seriously, I enjoyed both poetic offerings. But I hope you guys aren't actually ticked off at each other. There's been enough confrontation here lately.

From Rudolf's (vacation's address)

Thanks for all the nice comments.
I'll get back to you as soon as I can. -R

Zerdini, You ought to restrain yourself from attempting to play devil's advocate on threads with an NDE theme.

You Know bugger all about the subject.

Hi Trev

You are beginning to sound like 'bernie'. lol

You couldn't possibly know what I do or do not know about NDE's.

What I always do is to look at both sides of a debate whethet it is the Afterlife, NDE's, Reincarnation etc and make up my own mind in conjunction with my personal experiences. That seems quite reasonable to me.

I do not believe anything simply because someone says so.

MP wrote:

Seriously, I enjoyed both poetic offerings. But I hope you guys aren't actually ticked off at each other. There's been enough confrontation here lately.

Not on my part, Michael. I don't know Trevor from a bar of soap. As far as I am concerned he is just a name on a blog.

I do, however, know some people who post on here. Some I have recommended to this blog because it usually has a high level of debate and information.

As Voltaire said: "I do not agree with what you have to say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it."

Zerdini.....'you are beginning to sound like 'bernie'. lol

And you are beginning to sound like Mahatma Ghandi, Charlotte Bronte, Maurice Chevalier and

'I do not believe anything because someone says so'

Coming from you, Zerdini, that it truly priceless.

You who strains gnats when examining NDE's but swallows camels when reporting on mere full form spirit materializations.

You may not Know me from a bar of soap, but I know exactly who you are.

should have read..that is truly priceless

Oh by the way, Oh Great One (seeing as you think I sound like bernie)

On the fourth line of your limerick, Oh Great One, you could have written 'menser' for mensa. It would have suggested an even higher IQ at work...and I would have got the gist..honist, Oh Great One, even with my limited intellect.

There once was an old misanthrope
Who looked like a used bar of old soap;
He couldn’t stand cheese
But liked NDEs
And swallowed them whole like a dope.

There once was an old misanthrope
Who looked like a used bar of soap.
He couldn’t stand cheese
But liked NDEs
And swallowed them whole like a dope.

Apologies -too many "olds" in the first version.

'Exellent limerick, Anon and most apposite to the thread'

There was an anonymous man
Who posted like only he can
His 'thoughts' were so sparse
He spoke from his @r#e
Then picked up his potty and ran

With an IQ lower than low
A guy is always de trop.
When he opens his mouth
The whole world goes south
And watches paint dry in the snow.

Two blogging best mates, Yin and Yang
On a mission to mock and harang
When Yin got in trouble
Yang came at the double
And posted some risible slang.

The man on his own with no gang
Must know whence his loneliness sprang...
His prose is like lead
His poetry’s dead
And he hoots like an orang-utang.

Anon's self regard has grown
From a source completely unknown
Please squeeze yourself, zit
You cowardly git
Do it and let puss be shown

So what’s in a name on a blog?
Whether Trevor or Bernie or Zog,
Whichever you choose
For your venomous ooze,
You’re still an anonymous hog.

Skeptiko has posted a new episode featuring an interview with Stephen Braude.

In addition, Alex Tsakiris has posted a response letter from Sam Parnia regarding the protocol of the AWARE study.

Thanks for the links, Ronnie Lee.

Thanks even more for not posting them in limerick form!

Yes, I felt this would be a good opportunity to break the chain ;)

Ludwig Van Beethoven's his mate
He materializes for dinner at eight
It really does happen
I give you nein crappen
Look here is Van Beethoven's plate.



Apologies, not enough Z's in the limerick.

Zudwig Zan Zeethoven's his mate
He materializes for dinner at eight
It Really Does Happen
I give you nein crappen
Look here is zee actual plate.

OK, Michael,
Of course, it's childish in the extreme. Sorry, honestly.

Tomorrow I will say goodbye. but Yin and Yang won't like it. They are a pair of bullies who hounded 'somebody' off your blog.

I’m sorry that Trev’s turned so blue…
His insights were brilliant, it’s true.
But if you’re a fan,
He’s not had a ban
-He’ll come back as ‘somebody’ new.

Yindini and Yan
Great Shakes and his fan
Most apposite contributors to blogs
If it's not Yan's huge vanity
It's Yindini's insanity
He's a mad as a big box of frogs.

Au Revoir,

I came sort of interested in reading the comments and discussion but honestly, I can't get passed the immaturity level.

I don't blame you.

From Rudolf Smit

A hi to all of you!

Yes, I am back from a brief vacation, and I intend to write another fairly lengthy contribution re this case.

I am afraid I have to agree with Paul and Josh that although some of those limericks are quite funny, they are not contributions that are apposite for this blog.

Paul - in my next contribution I will concentrate on some of your remarks. Again, give me some time.


Thanks Rudolf. Hope you went somewhere nice :)

From Rudolf Smit - My third contribution re the dentures case.


First of all, I received confirmation about the timing of the switching-on of the Thumper. Remember that Woerlee selected the first option (because that one suited him best) whereas nurse TG had insisted that the second had been the correct one. The cardiologist I consulted said that it is not at all easy to intubate a patient when the Thumper is switched on, which is why intubation is only done when the Thumper is switched off. Hence, the second option is the correct one: first intubate, next place the ventilation mask, and finally switch on the Thumper.

In response to Paul

Secondly, I cannot agree with some of the statements by contributor Paul. What follows now are italiced snippets from his contribution dated August 18, 2010, at 5:23 AM, each followed by my response.

I agree that evidence cannot be dismissed purely on the basis of its age. Where evidence is old though, the circumstances around how it was recorded, the individuals giving it and any corroboration become, you might agree, even more important. It seems to me there isn't a great deal of independent corroboration here to support TGs version of events. That does not mean he is not telling the truth or is wrong - it simply makes it more difficult for me (so what?) to accept that report as being 'very evidential' (other than to TG and the patient).

Dear Paul – It can even be worse: one can easily allege, like the diehard skeptics do, that the whole story is nothing but a fabrication by someone who wished to become a celibrity of sorts? But there is no evidence for it whatsoever.
Look, there are NOT only two possibilities (evidential versus non-evidential), but all sorts of gradations inbetween. 'Evidential enough to be taken seriously and not be ignored' is enough here.
The case in its own right is sufficiently strong to be problematic when trying to fit into the materialistic world view.

It is true that significant events definitely do leave much more of an impression on our memories than mundane activities. The issue it seems to me here is in the details of what happened. Could it not be that after such a period of time, TG believed he/she remembers the details correctly but that the actual detail is incorrect?

Sorry Paul, I appreciate your concerns but what you are saying here can hardly make sense, unless you want to be even more of the debunking type than the average CSICOPer. There cannot be much of incorrectness of detail, certainly not when we look at the core of the case. It would imply that TG could have been enormously impressed by an experience he himself had never had gone through and thus had fooled himself right from the beginning – a typical skeptical non-explanation, by the way: the whole story was dreamed up due to the tensions he had to endure and which were caused by the considerable responsibility he had to shoulder.
But then one wonders how TG could have remembered this experience so utterly vividly? According to skeptics and their absurd sense of logic: it CANNOT be therefore it MUST have been self-deception. But when you are simply open-minded then you have to go where the evidence leads you. And whatever one may think, the evidence in this case points at something that does not fit into the materialistic world view. Even Woerlee himself has not for one moment said that TG must have fooled himself due to the stressfulness of the entire incident. TG did a good job, i.e. resuscitating an evidently very hard to treat patient – something he had done before however, hence he was not an unexperienced cardiac nurse. The only possible stressful factor was that he had to carry most of the responsibility, since he was the most experienced one of the four people who gave patient B the required medical treatment. A possible reasoning that this was enough to make TG concoct a perfect story is something that only crazy pseudo-skeptics can come up with. As for that, the explanatory ravings of pseudo-skeptics are often more absurd than seemingly absurd events. But we met in TG a level-headed man who after all those years still does not know what to think of the case as it does not comply with his world views. And such a man would dream up a fantastic story like this one? Too crazy to contemplate such a thought. Just recently TG complained to us that he had ever brought the story into the open. All he wishes now is to be left alone and not be bothered again with the whole nasty fuss around this case.

The encounter with the patient was some days after the event as I understand it. Was there opportunity for others to mention his teeth, the nurse who resuscitated him, TG's name, when he would be on-duty next etc?

Paul – I already discussed this, remember? It might have happened but as far as we know, it did not happen, period. But then, so what? See further.

It seems to me there could well have been such an opportunity. Did it happen? TG probably does remember how likely or unlikely this is but is it impossible?

This is very unlikely when one considers the fact that TG was very much impressed by what the patient had said, which did not limit itself to “You, yes you, you know where my dentures are!” On the contrary, this patient went on talking about an incident that in fact was an NDE with an OBE, a concept that was hardly known in 1979. Most certainly, patient B himself did not know about this; he was quite an ordinary man, a no-nonsense figure, in his daily life a steelbender who did not care much about esoteric things. (In general, the Dutch are known for their “nuchterheid” = common sense, which certainly applies to the less-educated.)
Besides, it is more likely that B kept the information about his resuscitation to himself, realizing that the chance of being believed was greater with the nurse who actually resuscitated him, than with the attending personnel in the ward where he was at the time.
In this respect, is should be noted that when TG tried to share his experiences with his fellow nurses, he was met with bewilderment and disbelief. Only one colleague, a KB, believed him and later related the story to Vincent Meyers, one of the founders of IANDS The Netherlands. And as we know, that contact started the ball rolling.

As for the possible events between his leaving the resuscitation room and the moment when he, patient B, first talked to nurse TG ... oh sure, anything could have happened, such as the possibility, as suggested by a skeptic, that he ordered a nurse to roll his hospital bed out and so take him to the resuscitation room to have a very close look at everything in there, while at the same time looking for his dentures. O yes, a possibility... but wouldn’t it be a somewhat remote one? It is more likely that B needed a few days to recover before he could start thinking about the whole affair, and it is also so much more likely that the ward personnel had definitely something else on their mind than pleasing patient B to the aforementioned extent only to help him finding his dentures.
Do realize that also in that period, there was a shortage of nurses and other hospital personnel. There was and is virtually no time for hospital staff to devote to the patients – a big complaint still heard today. I can speak for myself because in February 1980 I also spent a week in a hospital to undergo an operation and got little attention from the nurses, except the truly necessary help.
All in all, what skeptics suggested could indeed have happened, but most likely did not. I repeat, the hospital staff had other things to worry about than dentures, and just as likely – as I pointed out – would not have been aware of, let alone would be interested in, who precisely did the resuscitation.

I do not say this event did not happen and wasn't a true NDE. My reservations are simply, given the nature of the evidence as presented, about this being a 'very evidential example of an NDE'. I don't see it like that. I do think it is a most interesting experience, I do think it is suggestive of an NDE,

Sorry Paul – by all accounts it was an NDE combined with an OBE. With the exception of the tunnel and the light, it had all the hallmarks: patient clinically dead (i.e. no heart beat, no circulation, no breathing, no reflexex, etc), veridical observations from high up at the ceiling above the body, etc.
Of course, any case can be stronger, but no matter what, you cannot ignore this one, or play down its significance. Nothing “suggestive” about it.

particularly the patients general comments about his experience whilst in resus, however these are not reported by the patient, but by a 3rd party - again this doesn't make them wrong but, for some, introduce doubt.

Look Paul, one can go on forever seeding doubts. Of course, the story was related by a third party, yes. But at an early stage it was told to others, one of them being so kind to contact a founding member of IANDS the Netherlands.
But secondly, the two reports show great resemblance and are sober accounts without any embellishments, in correct chronological order and technically okay.

Indeed, it is a pity that patient B has eluded us. Most likely he is dead as I reported in my JNDS article. The team that worked on this case has done everything one could do to locate relatives of B, but that was all to no avail.

It is also a pity that we could not find the three other people of the resuscitation team. As for that, the strict privacy laws of the Netherlands stand in the way.

As for the age of the case, we were told that it already featured in a BBC documentary, of 1990 or thereabouts, hence only 11 years after it happened. We have not been able to find this documentary though.

Suggestive of an NDE - yes I think so. Very good evidence - I am not so sure.

I think to have made my point and rest my case.
And just wait for the double article (Woerlee’s and mine) in the Summer Issue of JNDS.

Rudolf Smit, also on behalf of Titus Rivas (a name to remember!)

PS – I may write another contribution, but not about the dentures case, but on skepticism in general.

Thanks for the extended comments Rudolf. I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on this one.

Whilst I cannot enter into the discussion of the medical procedures, I do understand a thing or two about how evidence is assessed and it appears to me on the one hand you agree that it is possible that there were a number of opportunities for the testimony to be incorrect, on the other hand you are certain it supports your view of what the evidence means and how reliable it is. This isn't logical to me. Particularly since you are not a first-hand witness to any of these events.

I haven't read anything in your response that I can see makes my observations less valid. Whether you view me as a sceptic or not doesn't matter to me.

'Seeding doubt' is a pejorative expression. I am simply interested in understanding the actual facts and determine how far one can accept the accuracy of the testimony of one person so long after an event with so many gaps. If you see it differently, I don't have a problem with that.

I don't think there is much more to be gained by further discussion on the matter and will leave you to preach to the converted.

From Rudolf Smit

Dear Paul - sorry if I offended you. I did not mean to say that it is you who is seeding doubt in this matter. It was a general statement. What I meant to say is that there should be an end to being skeptical. I am a skeptic too, but I refuse to be skeptical ad nauseam. Sometimes the facts are there and we have to accept them as they are. It is as simple as that. Being infinitely skeptical (as for example CSIcoppers do) makes life unlivable.

I have investigated the case - you have not, by the way - and that is what I report about.

For the rest, you are entitled to your opinion.

Have a nice day.


Thanks for the reply Rudolf I now understand your comment regarding seeding. No offence taken.

You have investigated it, that is true but I have no idea who you are or what your credentials are (no disrespect intended) for assessing the evidence. Also, by 'investigate' you mean interview the nurse I presume? I do not criticise this as the other parties concerned are not available to you. I do not however think this constitutes an substantial investigation. It is the best that could be done under the circumstances but as a result, there are many unknowns and uncertainties.

I can therefore only base my conclusions on your answers - which you have kindly spent quite a lot of time on. I don't even disagree with your conclusions, it's just that I don't agree with your level of confidence in them.

If the testimony of the nurse is true then it is highly evidential. The question is how do we know the evidence is true and for me there are too many question marks to be confident it is as he recalls it. Which we have discussed, as you say, sufficiently already.

You can say 'the facts are there' but they are not established as facts at all.

This isn't about being sceptical ad nauseam, it is about having enough confidence in the testimony or other evidence provided to reach a firm conclusion. I suspect we all have different levels at which evidence becomes sufficient to be called proof.

I recall a previous poster encouraging me to 'get of the fence instead of waiting until I had all the facts'. To me that was a preposterous suggestion. Maybe to the poster of the remark, that is how it works in their world.

I am having a nice day thank you.

Rudolf Smit wrote:

"It is also a pity that we could not find the three other people of the resuscitation team. As for that, the strict privacy laws of the Netherlands stand in the way."

I suspect there may be a way to find a loophole. After all, those laws weren't intended to apply to this sort of situation. If you could approach the sponsors of those laws, such as sponsoring legislators and privacy organizations, and ask them for their opinion on whether this case would or should be an exception, they might speak out on your behalf. Then you could go to the local prosecutor and ask if he'd have any objection to "looking the other way." Then you could go to the hospital administrators.

It might help if the hospital administrators stated at the outset that they'd like to help with your investigation, but that they'd need to be "covered" before doing so by the statements you're seeking from officials and pressure groups.

The comments to this entry are closed.