Talk:Pam Reynolds case

message: I would very much like someone to corroborate or refute the statement: "Proponents have generally misrepresented the amount of time which Reynolds was flatlined: the actual surgical timeline suggests that her brain stem activity was fully flatlined for a period of only five to six minutes at most, and there is no evidence that she retained memories or experiences during this particular period, as opposed to the rest of the several-hours long surgery.", because that is what determines the value of this NDE. - Waninge 21:30, 5 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No need for it anymore. I did it myself by writing a time line, based on the book of Sabom. It doesn't really matter how long Reynolds was flatlined. The time line shows that Reynolds observations in the operating room happened before she was flatlined. - Waninge 15:28, 18 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The only thing that seems not to be explained by the sceptists is the visual experience of seeing an oddly shaven head and oddly shaped saw/drill. How can you see when your eyes are covered?
By the way, how can you make a timeline of mental experiences? Did she had a stopwatch recording the time of every experience? The brain is not very good with time: it records only relative time, no absolute time, and it sometimes mixes things up. The brain is messy, very messy. Jdruiter (talk) 00:16, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I wrote the time line, based on the book Light and Death. The left column (Operation time) is based on the times and events mentioned in the book. The events in the right column (The NDE) are associated to events in the left column, for example if Reynolds hears a female voice saying that her veins and arteries are very small (right column) and at some moment a female surgeon is locating arteries in Reynolds legs and discovers that some arteries are too small (left column) then these events are believed to be associated and placed next to each other. Also, the sequence of events in both the left and right column is based on the sequence they were written in Light and Death. Waninge (talk) 20:01, 23 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  There's a paper in The Lancet (2001) which says "Several theories have been proposed to explain NDE. We did not show that psychological, neurophysiological, or physiological factors caused these experiences after cardiac arrest. Sabom22 mentions a young American woman who had complications during brain surgery for a cerebral aneurysm. The EEG of her cortex and brainstem had become totally flat. After the operation, which was eventually successful, this patient proved to have had a very deep NDE, including an out-of-body experience, with subsequently verified observations during the period of the flat EEG." Reference 22 is to the book Light and Death. So did the authors of this paper misunderstand the book? They say that she had a very deep NDE durig the period of flat EEG. (They don't specific'ly say that all of her NDE was during the flat EEG, but they imply that some of it was.) Eric Kvaalen (talk) 20:23, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

text: I see that Waninge stop'd contributing to Wikipedia back in 2009. So I managed to read some of Sabom's book on Google Books. He says that Pam satisfied three criteria for her brain being dead, namely a flat EEG (showing that the cerebral cortex was inactive), no response to the auditory clicks (showing that the brain-stem was also shut down), and no blood flow to any of the brain. Sabom says (p. 49), "Interestingly, while in this state, she encountered the 'deepest' near-death experience of all Atlanta Sudy participants." On page 43 Sabom writes that at 11:25 they drain'd the blood from her body, and then says, "Sometime during this period, Pam's near-death experience progressed:" and gives her description of the sensation of being pull'd, but not against her will... Unfortunately I cannot view page 44 where it continues. Page 45 tells about her coming back. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 09:27, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: open question and comment

message: This whole article is written from the perspective of "prove life after death/disprove life after death."  But it doesn't say so.  There is a section labeled "Critical," and no explanation of what one is being critical of. Martinphi (Talk Ψ Contribs) 03:56, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Assumption

message: The whole section listing then arguing against critics' points appears to be original research,
and not very good at that.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Fche (talk • contribs) 13:38, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Arguments about Critics

message: Does anyone know if she had any commercial success, e.g. songs recorded by well-known artists?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.7.150.181 (talk) 00:41, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I have, however, located two of her songs on her MySpace page. Nevertheless, there is no indication of how commercially successful these songs were. –– amanisdude (talk) 22:22, 2 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Singer songwriter 

message: The entire critical analysis section of this article is a near cut-and-paste from the website of GM Woerlee.  The specific criticisms are leveled by Woerlee against the video produced about the Sabom book.
Worlee is notedly biased toward atheism and his website uses that as the basis for his criticism.  
I have no problem if his criticisms are accurate but I'd like to see other points of view than "you can hear with ear plugs" from a single-source.
I've provided some quotes from Woerlee directly about the case, not to skew the argument, but to provide balance.  Personally I'd like to see the entire section removed, but my likes are irrelevant to a peer-reviewed encyclopedic article.
For context, this is a quote from Woerlee on his web site:
"All direct and indirect proofs of the reality of religious belief fail to prove the reality of any and all religious beliefs in a soul, a God, and an immaterial world inhabited by the dead. The only path forward is a world without a God, a world in which humans live in full knowledge of the reality of their being, and a world in which people strive to make the best of their lives and this world."
Woerlee further notes in the introduction to his criticism of NDEs link
I could go on for much longer, but the final conclusion is evident. Near death experiences are profound and wondrous experiences, but despite the intense and profound emotions and experiences they arouse, they are nonetheless conscious socio-culturally determined hallucinations generated by life-threatening experiences. The consistency of these experiences is rooted in the commonality of human body function, as well as the fundamental socio-cultural desires of all people regardless of race or sex.Emsed1 (talk) 22:01, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi, Emsed1, you are saying that parts of this article are "a near cut-and-paste from the website of GM Woerlee". I looked at this page and I don't find any obvious copying. Woerlee's page is much more detailed. Do you have specifics where the text is nearly identical? Thanks, --EPadmirateur (talk) 01:34, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi there, it seemed like to me that it was a rewording of Woerlee's views.  I will try and post some examples. Emsed1 (talk) 16:01, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually rewording and summarizing reliably sourced material is perfectly OK in WP. If there are other views that have been published in reliable sources (books, journals, etc.) or by experts in the field, then those viewpoints can be added to balance Woerlee's viewpoint. --EPadmirateur (talk) 21:52, 7 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Balancing Woerlee 

message: I assume this was a good faith effort, but synthesizing raw data from one book into a timeline in order to "clearly show" some kind of conclusion is original research, and so I have  
removed it. - LuckyLouie (talk) 17:55, 24 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: "Time line"

message: I agree that a balanced pov is necessary. Woerlee is not a neuroscientist. Qualified neuroscientists view on this should be included.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by SansBias (talk • contribs) 21:40, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Is Chris Carter a "qualified neuroscientist"? His degree is in Philosophy, Politics and Economics. Keri (talk) 22:06, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Despite edit warring on the part of  — for which they are currently blocked — and  — a suspected sockpuppet of SansBias — there has been no attempt by either of these accounts to discuss the current content dispute. Edit summaries are not discussion. The argument used is that Woerlee is not a neuroscientist − but then neither is Carter. The disputed material also links to a source which does not appear to be reliable, but irrespective of this the specific link returns a 404 not found error. Although there has been no discussion on this talk page to thrash out consensus, , , ,  and  have all reverted the insertion of the disputed content.  has also repeatedly attempted to add the disputed content. I invite you all to try to find consensus here to avoid further edit warring and disruption in the article space. Keri (talk) 13:05, 21 June 2015 (UTC)

text: Updated: SansBias and ZevofB3K are now indef'd for socking. But some input about the disputed content would still be useful should this situation arise again in the near future. Keri (talk) 13:10, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not sure what the fuss is about Woerlee. We have a pretty solid maintream-view cite from Columbia University Press . We don't need to give equal validity or "balance" that with Chris Carter (clearly a pro-fringe author ) pro-WP:FRINGE-view material from www.merkawah.nl ("the near-death network"). - LuckyLouie (talk) 14:33, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'd agree with that completely. Keri (talk) 14:42, 21 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Balancing Woerlee (2)

message: Substituted at 02:12, 30 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Assessment comment

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Pam Reynolds case. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213023527/http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/psychology/French_NDE_and_the_Brain.pdf to http://www-new1.heacademy.ac.uk/assets/documents/subjects/psychology/French_NDE_and_the_Brain.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified