|
Reply to Lorelyen
I will reply within the text you wrote, in all CAPS, for clarity...
In scientific method it would have to be repeatable to become a hypothesis.
WELL, NO. WHAT YOU WRITE ONLY APPLIES IF IT IS NOT ALREADY ACCEPTED SCIENTIFIC TRUTH. AND BY THAT I AM NOT REFERING TO THE NDE, I AM SPECIFICALLY REFERRING TO DR. ALEXANDER INDICATING THAT HIS BRAIN COULD NOT PRODUCE THOSE IMAGES.
A GP WHO LOOKS AT AN X-RAY AND SEES A BREAK IN THE BONE DOES NOT HAVE TO ENGAGE SOME ELABORATE STUDY WITH CONTROLS TO PROVE IT IS A BREAK.
A NEUROSURGEON LIKE DR. ALEXANDER IS, ABSOLUTELY, AN EXPERT IN THE BRAIN AND DOES NOT HAVE TO ENGAGE SOME ELABORATE STUDY TO PROVE THAT A CERTAIN LEVEL OF INFLAMMATION IN THE BRAIN WILL HAVE EFFECT.
Looking him up, he seems a bit of a populist and I can't accept his idea that he was brain dead.
JUST BECAUSE TO YOU HE SEEMS A POPULIST DOESN'T MEAN HE IS. WHAT PROOF DO YOU HAVE THAT HE IS SOME LYING MANIPULATIVE, MONEY GRUBBING SHILL? YOU DON'T HAVE PROOF, NOT AT ALL.
THE GUY COULD BE A COMPLETE SAINT. WHAT DO YOU KNOW OF HIS PERSONAL LIFE, HIS REPUTATION FOR HELPING OTHERS, PROOF OF HIS MORALITY? YOU ARE JUST MAKING AN ASSERTION
WITHOUT PROOF BECAUSE IT TENDS TO SERVE THE NARRATIVE YOU WANT TO BE TRUE...THAT HE MUST BE LYING. BUT...WHAT IF...HE ISN'T???
That means the brain is dead. The clinical definition of brain dead is that the brain has ceased to function.
Here's a brief summary which you can research for yourself:
"Brain death is a legal definition of death. It is the complete stopping of all brain function and cannot be reversed. It means that, because of extreme and serious trauma or injury to the brain, the body's blood supply to the brain is blocked, and the brain dies. Brain death is death."
BRAIN "DEATH" FAR MORE SCIENTIFICALLY COMPLICATED THAN THE SIMPLE DEFINITION THAT YOU CITE ABOVE. THAT IS NOT SOME KIND OF IMPRIMATUR FOR MEDICAL PROFESSIONALS.
The key point is that it isn't reversible.
RESPECTFULLY, YOU ARE NOT OFFERING PROFESSIONAL MEDICAL EVIDENCE. THE BRAIN IS QUITE COMPLEX AND QUITE VARIED. IT DEFINITELY DOES HAVE ABILITY TO RECOVER IN VARIOUS WAYS. THAT HE WAS "BRAIN DEAD" DOES NOT INDICATE
THAT HE COULD NOT COME BACK TO FULL BRAIN HEALTH. YOU DO NOT HAVE ANY MEDICAL EVIDENCE TO SUGGEST THAT.
My conclusion, given he's returned to normality with no apparent sign of brain damage is that he wasn't brain dead at all and his near death experience might have needed mechanical support but his brain was alive and well and we have no indication of its imaging capability.
YES, THAT IS YOUR LINE OF ARGUMENTATION, BUT IT IS HARDLY ANYTHING CLOSE TO MEDICAL EVIDENCE. AND PLEASE NOTE, NO DOCTORS, AND NO ONE IN GENERAL, HAS EVER COME FORWARD DISPUTING DR. ALEXANDER'S MEDICAL CLAIMS. NO ONE.
His pedigree is questionable. He may have qualified as a neurosurgeon but his history is checkered.
YOU HAVE PROOF HIS HISTORY IS "CHECKERED?" YOU MIGHT WANT TO BE EXTREMELY CAREFUL MAKING A STATEMENT LIKE THAT. YOU CAN LITERALLY BE USED FOR LIBEL.
Announcing "proof of heaven" in a populist men's magazine was asking for trouble. Why not "Nature", Scientific American or any of the Neuroscience journals? It also seems he was done for malpractice several times.
I suspect he hasn't been published in neuroscience journals in the UK (the BNA).
YOU SUSPECT? WITH ZERO EVIDENCE, YOU SUSPECT? WHAT EXACTLY DOES THAT MEAN? IF I SUSPECT YOU ARE A CHILD MOLESTER, DOES IT MAKE THAT TRUE? ARE YOU AT ALL FAMILIAR
WITH THE MEDICAL DISCIPLINE AND COMMUNITY? ALMOST ALL OF THEM EITHER HAVE TO PUBLISH OR THEY GET FIRED. IF HE WAS A PRACTICING NEUROSURGEON IT ALMOST CERTAINLY MEANS HE PUBLISHED.
I have no immediate access to the indices so I can't look anything up - but I see he's been mentioned in a couple of American medical journals more in a debate than research capacity.
There's no mention of any metering of his functions during his NDE that would enlighten us about the degree to which his brain could image so we just have to accept what he says as anecdote of personal experience. That sort of thing doesn't stand up to peer review.
AGAIN ABSOLUTELY NO ONE HAS COME FORWARD TO DISPUTE HIS ASSERTIONS. AND WHY? BECAUSE HE COULD TAKE THEM TO COURT AND SUE THEM.
Proof is too strong a word.
YOU ARE ASSERTING THAT PROOF IS TOO STRONG OF A WORD. OK. I CAN ASSERT THAT YOU WERE ABDUCTED BY ALIENS AND FORCED TO WATCH 1000 HOURS OF YODELING. JUST BECAUSE I ASSERT
THAT, DOESN'T MAKE IT TRUE. WHEN YOU SAY PROOF IS TOO STRONG OF A WORD, YOU ARE BASICALLY SAYING THAT A NEUROSURGEON CANNOT MAKE A PROFESSIONAL JUDGMENT ABOUT THE STATE OF
BRAIN ACTIVITY. IT'S PATENTLY, ON ITS FACE, NOT TRUE. HE CAN. THEY DO. THEY DO IT ALL THE TIME.
|