felixomor:

I thought u earlier said there is no dishonesty when different journals are involved?
You are removing your own footing by yourself
In other words all u have been saying could be wrong.

Thats minus the lies u told at the beginning.

At the bolded now where did I say that? If you don't understand what I wrote, come out plain and ask for explanation. Don't infer, don't assume, just ask.

I've explained everything about ICD10 to you, it's not my fault if you still refuse to understand.

CatfishBilly:

This is a variant of God of the gaps argument/Argumentum ad ignorantiam. Because it is unknown therefore it must be prayers.

Haven't you heard of the Not-God of the gaps I introduced ? Because we don't know does not mean that God did not do it . Plus You always commit the appeal to common sense fallacy everytime . I don't believe God it , or I don't see how God did it therefore it is false

CatfishBilly:

At the bolded now where did I say that? If you don't understand what I wrote, come out plain and ask for explanation. Don't infer, don't assume, just ask.

I've explained everything about ICD10 to you, it's not my fault if you still refuse to understand.

Forget ICD 10
That was a lie you told, black and white.

As for the bolded above,
What i mean is that
You said when multiple journals are involved, it is most likely truth.
And then I said even multiple journals can conspire to tell a lie in science.

Thats what I meant

CatfishBilly:

At the bolded now where did I say that? If you don't understand what I wrote, come out plain and ask for explanation. Don't infer, don't assume, just ask.

I've explained everything about ICD10 to you, it's not my fault if you still refuse to understand.

Since you say you have explained icd10 can you tell me if it's conclusive or not sir. From what you know about it is it medically applicable or fiction.

Have you seen a patient flatline before and unplugged and covered up to be taken away to the morgue and suddenly come alive and sit up without medical assistance?

spacetacular:


You say your science is based on evidence yet you disregard myself who has on the job daily experiences as evidence? You are another dishonest fellow sir.

Your idea of science isn't based on personal evidence but literature on the purported evidence given by others. The only time you gave an evidence was when you said you have also through probable CPR brought a dead person back but even those are just words with nothing to prove your claim.

Even if I chose to go with your claim can you explain the process that took place which brought about the death and revival of that person and who certified the person dead.

So you try to discard my claim and want me to accept yours? The sheer hypocrisy, man
That is why I brought in a neutral figure, like every other medical researcher does all over the world. Research articles published in reputable journals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your problem.

If you are so convinced about your experiences, write an article on it and publish let's see if it will survive peer review.

spacetacular:


God of the gaps or whatever you call it isn't my point. I am talking medicine and not Religion. Absolutely nobody can offer a leaning conclusion to an unknown matter. This shows that for such even an observation is lacking. So no observation, no conclusion!

Can we stick to medicine sir?

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the non religious variant. Go and read it up.

CatfishBilly:

So you try to discard my claim and want me to accept yours? The sheer hypocrisy, man
That is why I brought in a neutral figure, like every other medical researcher does all over the world. Research articles published in reputable journals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your problem.

If you are so convinced about your experiences, write an article on it and publish let's see if it will survive peer review.

Did you say write an article? I believe I mentioned somewhere that I am no paper pusher. Can you give me one such article you have written since you believe so much in articles. Afterall you have revived a dead person before haven't you so you must be an authority figure right?

CatfishBilly:

So you try to discard my claim and want me to accept yours? The sheer hypocrisy, man
[b]That is why I brought in a neutral figure, like every other medical researcher does all over the world. Research articles [/b]published in reputable journals. If you don't want to accept it, that's your problem.

If you are so convinced about your experiences, write an article on it and publish let's see if it will survive peer review.

Unfortunately, we have not seen a single of this journals
You have been mentioning since
Apart from the indirectly referenced

CatfishBilly:

Argumentum ad ignorantiam is the non religious variant. Go and read it up.

Not interested in your gibberish. I am interested in the word "unknown". Does it have a different meaning to you sir?

spacetacular:


Your answer should have been "I don't know" and not an emphatic no. That's when you would have made sense sir Especially when medical assistance was not available when spirituality was applied with probable results.

You are the one making mockery of scientific reasoning here.

Basic knowledge of controlled experiment, should have guided your understanding of my post.

"probable results"?

*How do you probe into a death, that was CLAIMED to be revitalized, when such death was not medically certified FIRST, before the prayer?

felixomor:


Forget ICD 10
That was a lie you told, black and white.

As for the bolded above,
What i mean is that
You said when multiple journals are involved, it is most likely truth.
And then I said even multiple journals can conspire to tell a lie in science.

Thats what I meant

Oh, now I should forget ICD10? No lie evidence still.
Yes, when multiple journals are involved with different authors over several years, it is most likely true.

I'm yet to see where multiple journals with different authors over several years was found out to be a lie. Can you help me with that?

CatfishBilly:

Oh, now I should forget ICD10? No lie evidence still.
Yes, when multiple journals are involved with different authors over several years, it is most likely true.

I'm yet to see where multiple journals with different authors over several years was found out to be a lie. Can you help me with that?

Sorry, your ICD 10 claim was proven to be false both by my link and yours.

As for journals,
Do u know that the recently, many information and "journals" on consumption of cholesterol and all the blah blah were found to be incorrect?

Just imagine if u had made a thread on such journals some years back?

akintom:

You are the one making mockery of scientific reasoning here.

Basic knowledge of controlled experiment, should have guided your understanding of my post.

"probable results"?

*How do you probe into a death, that was CLAIMED to be revitalized, when such death was not medically certified FIRST, before the prayer?

You are the one making mockery of everything you have said. Let me rephrase your question in a way you might understand.

How do you probe into a revitalization of the dead without medical assistance after being medically certified as dead?

You see it works both ways which is why I urged that you would have said "I don't know" and not your emphatic no.

spacetacular:


Since you say you have explained icd10 can you tell me if it's conclusive or not sir. From what you know about it is it medically applicable or fiction.

Of course it's conclusive. A colleague posted about a classic case about one week ago. That the mechanism is unknown doesn't make it false. A whole host of medical conditions were unknown before research solved it.

Have you seen a patient flatline before and unplugged and covered up to be taken away to the morgue and suddenly come alive and sit up without medical assistance?

I've not.
Have you seen an Ebola patient?
Have you seen a Patient with Crutzfeld-Jacobs disease.
That you haven't seen doesn't make it false.

spacetacular:



You are the one making mockery of everything you have said. Let me rephrase your question in a way you might understand.

How do you probe into a revitalization of the dead without medical assistance after being medically certified as dead?

You see it works both ways which is why I urged that you would have said "I don't know" and not your emphatic no.

akintom, you can see what I have been lecturing u on?
Thank God u r hearing from another person

spacetacular:


Did you say write an article? I believe I mentioned somewhere that I am no paper pusher. Can you give me one such article you have written since you believe so much in articles. Afterall you have revived a dead person before haven't you so you must be an authority figure right?

I've not written an article because there is no need to, It has been covered in medical literature.
But since your own experience hasn't been covered, it's a prime candidate for an article. Write one. Wow us with this your unknown part of medicine.

CatfishBilly:

Of course it's conclusive. A colleague posted about a classic case about one week ago. That the mechanism is unknown doesn't make it false. A whole host of medical conditions were unknown before research solved it.


I've not.
Have you seen an Ebola patient?
Have you seen a Patient with Crutzfeld-Jacobs disease.
That you haven't seen doesn't make it false.

It's conclusive yet unknown? Wow.
So since the mechanism is unknown how did you arrive at your conclusion and what makes it false or right? Being neutral should be your best position especially since you are putting unknown and conclusive in one sentence.

I thought you said you brought a dead body back to life so how then did you confirm death since you said here that you have not seen a patient flatline before sir.

This is even from one of the journal articles referenced;

"The term “Lazarus phenomenon” was coined by Bray2 to describe this situation after the biblical character Lazarus who Jesus reputedly raised to life.3 There have been more than 25 cases reported in the literature but it remains unfamiliar to emergency department staff. "

The term is even just a description coined by just one fellow doctor,
But our dear author champions the term like a pathophysiological explanation for how it happens.

Anyway, we are used to him.

spacetacular:



It's conclusive yet unknown? Wow.
So since the mechanism is unknown how did you arrive at your conclusion and what makes it false or right? Being neutral should be your best position especially since you are putting unknown and conclusive in one sentence.

It is conclusive. Patient died then had autoresuscitation when regular resuscitation failed. That part is beyond doubt. What is unknown is the mechanism by which the autoresuscitation occurred of which several theories have been put forward. The Crux of the debate is Autoresuscitation after failed resuscitation attempts is a known entity in medicine.

I thought you said you brought a dead body back to life so how then did you confirm death since you said here that you have not seen a patient flatline before.

This was your question

Have you seen a patient flatline before and unplugged and covered up to be taken away to the morgue and suddenly come alive and sit up without medical assistance?

Of which I answered in the negative.
Patient was only on a pulse oximeter when saturation dropped to zero. There was absence of spontaneous CardioPulmonary effort, so, yea, patient died.

spacetacular:



You are the one making mockery of everything you have said. Let me rephrase your question in a way you might understand.

How do you probe into a revitalization of the dead without medical assistance after being medically certified as dead?

You see it works both ways which is why I urged that you would have said "I don't know" and not your emphatic no.

You're obviously having difficulty, in attending this discussion with sufficient attention span.

My response was to your "probable" spiritual (prayer) intervention, revitalizing a dead body.

How can you claim it's probable (Scientifically speaking), when such claimed dead, was not so certified by scientific procedure, before your claimed prayers, that revitalized the dead.

Isn't ridiculous to be attempting to educate me, when you're tending to being a charlatan here?

felixomor:
This is even from one of the journal articles referenced;

"The term “Lazarus phenomenon” was coined by Bray2 to describe this situation after the biblical character Lazarus who Jesus reputedly raised to life.3 There have been more than 25 cases reported in the literature but it remains unfamiliar to emergency department staff. "

The term is even just a description coined by just one fellow doctor,
But our dear author champions the term like a pathophysiological explanation for how it happens.

Anyway, we are used to him.

So the fact that a doctor named the phenomenon made it false? Really?
Okay, sorry ooo. Choose Return of Spontaneous Circulation if Lazarus is scratching your body.
Of course emergency room staff won't be used to it only about 40 cases all over the world have been reported.

CatfishBilly:

So the fact that a doctor named the phenomenon made it false? Really?

No it doesn't
The point is even the old man in my village can also do that in my local dialect

CatfishBilly:

Okay, sorry ooo. Choose Return of Spontaneous Circulation if Lazarus is scratching your body.

You dont get it.
Even if u change the name to B.B.c,
It doesnt explain the mysterious mechanism

CatfishBilly:

Of course emergency room staff won't be used to it only about 40 cases all over the world have been reported.

Hmmmm
Only about 40 cases reported among the billions of people that have died since 1982.....
Hmmmmm, that should raise an eyebrow.....

Anyway.....

felixomor:

No it doesn't
The point is even the old man in my village can also do that in my local dialect



You dont get it.
Even if u change the name to B.B.c,
It doesnt explain the mysterious mechanism


Hmmmm
Only about 40 cases reported among the billions of people that have died since 1982.....
Hmmmmm, that should raise an eyebrow.....

Anyway.....

Raise an eyebrow to what? Come out plainly and say it.

CatfishBilly:
Coming Back From The Dead, A Religious Miracle? A Doctor's Perspective.


Every "Death" that I'm going to refer to in this thread was confirmed by medical/paramedical personnel, with cardiac monitors attached.


So, last week, a colleague posted a story of a surgery where in the course of the surgery, the person being operated on started deteriorating. As cardiopulmonary arrest was staring them in the face, CardioPulmonary Resuscitation (CPR) was started. During the course of the CPR, the person's heart and breathing stopped (died) evidenced by a flat line on the Heart/EKG monitor. Patient died (clinical death) on that table for all intents and purposes.
But, CPR was continued as it wore on, it was looking more and more likely that it was going to be in futility, when one of the Anesthesiologists in the room started praying, as he was praying, CPR was still ongoing, when the heart monitor suddenly started beeping. Heart beat and spontaneous breathing came back and the surgery was completed.
This colleague declared that episode a miracle, because of the prayer, but was it really a miracle?

Unfortunately, this colleague isn't conversant with the medical entity of Return of Spontaneous Circulation (ROSC) and Lazarus Syndrome.
What it means is that it has appeared in Medical literature about 40 times where the heart of a patient stopped (died) and it auto restarted again, with the longest episode taking up to a day.
But what all these cases have in common is that CPR was performed extensively on these people when after adjudged to be futile, was stopped and patients regained spontaneous CardioPulmonary function later.
Of course the role of prayer or any religious ritual at that wasn't brought in as a factor.

Of course, resuscitation is only performed on cases where it is plausible that the heart would restart. Cases where the patient died after being decapitated, disemboweled, dismembered or suffered severe trauma (being sawn completely into 2) rarely require resuscitation because the outcome is obvious, and I'm yet to see any religious person attempt to raise this particular group from the dead because they know that it's a lost cause.

So, our religious sphere is littered with stories of people raising people from the dead, now there are 2 plausible explanations.
1) The person in question didn't really die. The relatives just raised a false alarm. Because, there was no medical personnel around to actually confirm and certify the person dead.
I've witnessed cases where patient relatives raise alarm that a person is dead, but after examination, it is determined that the patient is unconscious albeit with poor vital signs.

2) The patient actually died, but after resuscitation attempts the person had ROSC/Lazarus Syndrome i.e. came back to life.

I'm yet to see any medical personnel resuscitate a patient who died from being decapitated, disemboweled, dismembered or suffered severe trauma (being sawn completely into 2).
If you have seen your Pastors/Imam/Prophet/Priest/Babalawo bring such people back to life, please let us know in the comments.

Its a spiritual experience. man is first a sprit ,he lives ,interact and function through a physical body with the material world. when a man dies . actually man doesn't die . The spirit exit the body but still lives on. some spirits may stay around for couple of days . some leaves to hell or heaven immediately . some of the people who came back to life spoke about how they came out of their bodies and recounted details of the event around them some even were pulled out of the building as they departs the earth and mentions objects of the roof of the tall building which they never knew existed there normally . most of the people that came back have similar stories. not that they were locked in the body but that they came out of the body. That means they were dead. they mostly came back by prayer of others or a divine being God or jesus sends them back.

akintom:


You're obviously having difficulty, in attending this discussion with sufficient attention span.

My response was to your "probable" spiritual (prayer) intervention, revitalizing a dead body.

How can you claim it's probable (Scientifically speaking), when such claimed dead, was not so certified by scientific procedure, before your claimed prayers, that revitalized the dead.

Isn't ridiculous to be attempting to educate me, when you're tending to being a charlatan here?

Sorry I responded to you in the first instance. I will cease forthwith for the simple fact that the words "unknown" seems to hold a different meaning with you especially when you attach conclusion to it as a lean.

Have a great day sir

CatfishBilly:

Raise an eyebrow to what? Come out plainly and say it.

That number is statistically insignificant.

felixomor:

That number is statistically insignificant.

Statistically insignificant to what?

CatfishBilly:

Statistically insignificant to what?

You want me to explain what "statistically insignificant" means?
And u say u r conversant with statistics?

onyenze123:


Yes Doc

So you where do you stand?

felixomor:


Just save the picture
When typing comments

Below the typing box click one of the "choose file" buttons and attach the file from the location it is saved on your phone.

ssddff

akintom:
The crux

1. do we yet understand the human physiology absolutely? No

2. is there a 100% (absolute) medical procedure, by which death can be certified, in ALL cases of death suspicion? No

3. can we have a case of revitalization, after death has been certified, based on present level of medical procedures? Yes

4. do we have absolute medical explanation, for the rare cases of revitalized dead? No

5. Is whatever responsible for the revitalization, part of physiology of the dead? Yes

6. Could words (prayer), be responsible for the unknown? No

7. Therefore, "miraculous revitalization" is a religious assumption for the unknown.

Your post is so bias. Like seriously? All your questions and answers made sense until you got to the last one and do you know why? Because you made it look absolute, like 100%, like generally it can never be while the others you gave them hope....

When you check within you with this way of write up, you yourself will know you were so partial. That alone speaks volumes.

1. Do we yet
2 . is there a 100%
3.... Based on present level
4. Do we have absolute
5. Is... part of

Then when you got to prayers, you generalized it in an absolute way.

Take am easy now... Must you defend to that extent?
Let your heart still be intact ooo