• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

"Back From Dead"

Rodney said:
There are unlimited possibilities, just no convincing explanation.
Click to expand...


Rodney said:
And don't mistake speculation for evidence.
Click to expand...


Quite.


Rodney said:
What does any issue discussed in this subforum have to do with the paranormal if, as most here believe, there is no such thing as the paranormal?
Click to expand...


That's prolly where the 'General Skepticism' bit comes into its own as part of the sub-forum title.
 
Last edited:
Rodney said:
"We did a thorough evaluation and can't find anything that explains why this happened," she said.
See http://www.sphere.com/nation/articl...r-son-coltyn-die-in-labor-but-revive/19297498
Click to expand...

So what? Even if Dr. Martin wants to pretend otherwise (which I doubt), once the mother recovered, some of the possibilities would be undectectable. For example, obstruction to blood flow (one of the possibilities that Dr. Martin suggested) would be undetectable once the baby was removed. And would you really expect any spokespeople for the hospital to be forthcoming if there was any hint of wrongdoing on the part of some hospital staff? And this doesn't even take into consideration that the hospital is restricted in what details can be released. Regardless of what anyone is trying to claim, we would expect some of the causes to be undetectable in an evaluation after the fact, and we would expect that a brief statement made by a hospital spokesperson may not contain important details. Especially if it's in anyone's interest to hold back information.

If one of my residents tried to use "Goddidit" as an excuse for failing to perform an adequate evaluation, they'd get their ass handed to them.

Linda
 
Here's a specific example of the disconnect between the statements which the press reports and the reality of the situation.

About two years ago there was a discussion on here about a report of girl who changed blood type after liver transplant and no longer needed immunosuppressive therapy. What was reported in the press was "doctors cannot fully explain her recovery" and "there was no precedent for this having happened at any other time," yet the report in the New England Journal of Medicine gave a detailed explanation of not only how this had occurred (with references to research which supported each step in the process), but included case reports and references to previously published reports on related prior occurrences. Even then, there were several posters who were absolutely adamant that the secondhand, very brief remarks in the newspaper accounts should be taken as more accurate than the primary, detailed account published in the NEJM.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/a...girl-liver-transplant-changed-blood-type.html

http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/358/4/369

Linda
 
I guess an angel delivered her baby. She obviously escaped the angels-on-demons melee that was going on in the delivery room, before the other angels successfully rescusciated the woman and her baby that had previously been possessed by the demons.

I'm surprised that none of the medical staff notice this stuff going on all around them all the time......:rolleyes:
 
fls said:
So what? Even if Dr. Martin wants to pretend otherwise (which I doubt), once the mother recovered, some of the possibilities would be undectectable. For example, obstruction to blood flow (one of the possibilities that Dr. Martin suggested) would be undetectable once the baby was removed. And would you really expect any spokespeople for the hospital to be forthcoming if there was any hint of wrongdoing on the part of some hospital staff? And this doesn't even take into consideration that the hospital is restricted in what details can be released. Regardless of what anyone is trying to claim, we would expect some of the causes to be undetectable in an evaluation after the fact, and we would expect that a brief statement made by a hospital spokesperson may not contain important details. Especially if it's in anyone's interest to hold back information.

If one of my residents tried to use "Goddidit" as an excuse for failing to perform an adequate evaluation, they'd get their ass handed to them.

Linda
Click to expand...
What evidence do you have that an inadequate evaluation ws done in this case?
 
Rodney said:
What evidence do you have that an inadequate evaluation ws done in this case?
Click to expand...

What evidence do you have that anything paranormal occurred?

And again, I ask, was the cardiac arrest or the recovery (or both) the paranormal occurrence? Do you have any leads on the paranormal agents involved? (Angels, demons, fairies, ghosts, pixies.....)
 
A week or so ago, a code blue was announced up on the maternity floor. I couldn't go as I was engaged with my own patients. When the other nurses returned, they told me the mother had stopped breathing and started again on her own after being shook (aroused) before any other measures could be taken. Is this a miracle too?:rolleyes:
 
Sun Countess said:
I guess an angel delivered her baby. She obviously escaped the angels-on-demons melee that was going on in the delivery room, before the other angels successfully rescusciated the woman and her baby that had previously been possessed by the demons.

I'm surprised that none of the medical staff notice this stuff going on all around them all the time......:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

It's that damn science that keeps getting in their eyes.
 
Any-one like to guess how many women and children die during childbirth without medical intervention?
i.e letting whatever god in vogue determine the outcome.
 
Rodney said:
What evidence do you have that an inadequate evaluation ws done in this case?
Click to expand...

It has to be, because it was done after the fact. You don't have the luxury of running various diagnostic tests and performing imaging studies during a resuscitation. You simply don't get the opportunity to do an adequate evaluation. Depending upon the cause, you might have enough information from before the arrest to know what caused the arrest (for example, the patient may have been on a cardiac monitor prior to the arrest so the development of an arrhythmia leading to an arrest is documented), or there may be changes which persist long enough (if the patient survives) that they can be discovered after the fact (they go on to show the changes from a heart attack). But there are some causes, including those mentioned by Dr. Martin which would only be detectable at the time - no traces would be left after the event.

Linda
 
Rodney said:
And don't mistake speculation for evidence.
Click to expand...
Who is using speculation as evidence? You're the one who seems to say that our purported inability to explain something points to a paranormal explanation.

All we have to do is show that mundane explanations are possible to defeat that argument. Actually, we don't even have to do that since ignorance never supports any proposition.
 
fls said:
It has to be, because it was done after the fact. You don't have the luxury of running various diagnostic tests and performing imaging studies during a resuscitation. You simply don't get the opportunity to do an adequate evaluation. Depending upon the cause, you might have enough information from before the arrest to know what caused the arrest (for example, the patient may have been on a cardiac monitor prior to the arrest so the development of an arrhythmia leading to an arrest is documented), or there may be changes which persist long enough (if the patient survives) that they can be discovered after the fact (they go on to show the changes from a heart attack). But there are some causes, including those mentioned by Dr. Martin which would only be detectable at the time - no traces would be left after the event.

Linda
Click to expand...
So what's your bottom line here -- that there should be an investigation of this case to see who messed up?
 
Rodney said:
So what's your bottom line here -- that there should be an investigation of this case to see who messed up?
Click to expand...

What's your bottom line?
Be honest: are you saying that you think it is more likely to be a case of paranormal/supernatural intervention than the rational possibilites so far offered?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom