IMG_1216 BW small
Blog powered by Typepad

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

Comments

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

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

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of reactions and entries to a blog about something which people can only speculate because the articles are as yet unpublished.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


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

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.

'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.

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

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

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.

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 )

PS Broadcast time is 10 pm to 2 am Pacific.

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.

"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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

'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?

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.

'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.

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.

Jeez, guys. :-(

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

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.)

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.

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 ?

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

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.

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.

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.

"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.)

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

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

@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

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'.

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)

@Zerdini,

Did you find what you were looking for ?

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.

;-)


Sorry to hear you lost your job, Felipe.

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

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

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

@Zerdini,

Did you find what you were looking for ?

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

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."

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.

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.

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

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.

The comments to this entry are closed.