BIO-DEATH EXPERIMENT - THE LIFE DARKNED HORIZON

[exchemist]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

All the more reason, the fact that there is a variable definition of observation time from country to country (and the subsequent procedures with observed informations) and, as you said, the lack of oxygen implies an immediate degradation of the brain structures - what kind of sense would it make for politics to entrust the management of the dead to ideologies rather than science when science has all the necessary details about the "end" of that individual, especially in modern cultures where the greatest credit is given to science in the first place? (eg. without a unique identifying solution such as the lost of circulation system - which naturally implies that the brain would lose the main "tool" not to go into a degradation state? Isn't that a good reason for politics to consider the stop of cardiopulmonary system as the main factor to determine death, but strangely there are still differences of the chosen methods?)

 

This appears to be gibberish, unconnected with the passage from my post that you are quoting. 

[mr_keybay]

16 minutes ago, exchemist said:

This appears to be gibberish, unconnected with the passage from my post that you are quoting. 

Yet, everything you mentioned is completely off topic and most of your posts are tendentious, without any interest in discussing the topic even. I have been asking for that question and I haven't seen an actual response except the "science-sticks-to-facts", "you-are-no-proving-anything", "you-have-no-evidence-to-pull-interest". 

38 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Yes.

Feel free to post your disputes.

[Phi for All]

1 hour ago, mr_keybay said:

Please supply your dispute regarding my previous claims. What is your dispute for my claims?

You've ignored every single dispute that's been supplied for the last 5 pages. I don't think you understand enough about the subject to recognize a valid dispute. Every time you've made a claim that's disputed, it's followed by an explanation (i.e. why this isn't the Lazarus syndrome, why calling it a syndrome doesn't make it a medical certainty). The literature says that waiting 5-10 minutes after cessation of resuscitation is recommended, so don't you think more time was spent at some point in order to arrive at the 5-10 minute threshold?

Another argument that hasn't been presented yet is simple probability. With so many people having lived and died on Earth, if your claim had any truth to it, probability would ensure that at least a percentage of people we thought had died would come back to life inexplicably. Part of the power of science is predictability like this. It you're right, we should be seeing evidence of it, but we don't. 

[Peterkin]

6 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Feel free to post your disputes.

Have, too many times.  Final comment: Repetition is not my #1 choice for COD.

[mr_keybay]

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

The literature says that waiting 5-10 minutes after cessation of resuscitation is recommended, so don't you think more time was spent at some point in order to arrive at the 5-10 minute threshold?

That is the point; I guess that it should be not up to me, nor you, nor literature, nor anyone to define the appropriate times for a definitive announcement of death. It should be a unique scientifical definition. It isn't. I thought I made it clear, I apologize in case I wasn't able to do so. 

 

15 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Another argument that hasn't been presented yet is simple probability. With so many people having lived and died on Earth, if your claim had any truth to it, probability would ensure that at least a percentage of people we thought had died would come back to life inexplicably

This is why the topic's title is written as an experiment, not a conclusion, not a "law", not a rule. It's an experiment based from certain assumptions, which I explained thousands of times till now; experiments are done for researching purposes, they do not contain any actual conclusion inside before they are performed.

8 minutes ago, Peterkin said:

Have, too many times.  Final comment: Repetition is not my #1 choice for COD.

You have been asked to supply a dispute for my last statements, not repeating your previous statements which were clearly referred to other kind of claims.

Edited April 13, 2022 by mr_keybay

[Phi for All]

5 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

That is the point; it should be not up to me, nor literature, nor anyone to define the appropriate times for a definitive announcement. It should unique scientifical definition. It isn't. I thought I made it clear, I apologize in case I wasn't able to do so.

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551584/

Quote

 

Mollart and Goulon first coined the term 'coma depasse,' meaning a state beyond coma, for brain death.[1] The Conference of Royal Medical Colleges in 1976  came to the consensus that brainstem death constitutes brain death. The revised memorandum in 1979 correlated brainstem death with death itself.[1] The American Academy of Neurology (AAN) has postulated brain death as a “coma, absence of brainstem reflexes, and apnea.”[2] Academy of Medical Royal Colleges Working Party has defined brainstem death as 'the irreversible loss of the capacity for gaining consciousness, and the capacity to spontaneously breathe.'

Persistent vegetative state - loss of only cortical functions with intact brain stem functions

Brain-stem death - absent brain stem reflexes but the presence of few cortical as well as hypothalamic integrity such as osmoregulation

Whole Brain death - biological death with absent cortical and brainstem functions

Death - Whole-brain death along with the cardiopulmonary arrest

 

I'm going to ask you now, how many scientific studies and reports do I have to show before you acknowledge that a LOT of research has gone into when someone is clinically dead, and that your claims ignore the evidence that show them to be false? So far, you just hand-waive away what you don't like.

[mr_keybay]

9 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK551584/

"

Is the brain dead person really dead? - Issues in defining biological death - certain pitfalls merit consideration while evaluating for brainstem death confirmation:[8][9]

• The inexperience of the performing physician
• Potential confounders - such as hypothermia, drugs, alcohol
• Inadequate consideration during apnea test- such as low pCO2, ventilator trigger settings
• False Positive Brain Death Determination in scenarios such as barbiturate coma, baclofen toxicity
• False Negative Brain Death Determination- spinal reflexes and automatisms, ventilator auto-triggering during the apnea test
• Brain Death in Children- From 37 weeks of gestational age to 30 days, two examinations 24 hours apart whereas in 30 days to 18 years child, two examinations 12 hours apart
• Limitations of Ancillary Tests- artifacts in EEG
• Concerns relating to families and potential Organ donation such as personal and religious beliefs
• Failure to Maintain adequate environment for Organ donation -Systolic blood pressure of 100 mm Hg, urine output of at least 0.5 ml/kg/h; normal serum electrolytes and a tidal volume, not more than 8 ml/kg"

 

As you can see, it is well-known that the incompetence of the medical practitioners may be a reason of premature deaths, exactly how I indicated as a possible factor of resuscitation on certain cases in my thesis, clearly you haven't read it.  However, the fact that observation is done for a limited-defined-time because of an established literature information does not provide any scientifical reason to make it universal.

 

Regarding your first citation, isn't it obvious that brain death from cortex actually is what constitutes death - therefore what I have been remarking till now? Like I said, even if the brain ceases the activities for a single instant it is considerable as "dead", but further observation is required in order to establish a definitive death (which are referred, as you stated, by literature). You might say that occasional medical incompetence isn't related to a mechanical functioning, I might agree on this, but "occasional" medical incompetence can never be shown whether a patient will produce life-evident-signs out of the temporal boundary limit.

[Phi for All]

10 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

As you can see, it is well-known that the incompetence of the medical practitioners may be a reason of premature deaths, exactly how I indicated as a possible factor of resuscitation on certain cases in my thesis, clearly you haven't read it.  However, the fact that observation is done for a limited-defined-time because of an established literature information does not provide any scientifical reason to make it universal.

You have it ass-backwards. They didn't establish the thresholds first. They experimented until they found the thresholds, and they also list some factors that merit extra consideration. You make it sound like every single doctor for the last 200 years is incompetent, but the article is pointing out "pitfalls that merit consideration" when confirming the death of a brain stem.

IOW, the thresholds have been tested in order to find them. The literature is documentation of the experiments, because that's how science works. The literature doesn't get written beforehand.

18 minutes ago, mr_keybay said:

Like I said, even if the brain ceases the activities for a single instant it is considerable as "dead", but further observation is required in order to establish a definitive death (which are referred, as you stated, by literature).

Who considers this patient dead after a single instant? Not any doctor I know. According to you, they've all been incompetent for centuries. 

I knew you were going to try to hand-waive your way out of this. You're a waste of time and resources, and I'm sorry I tried to help you with your claims. 

[mr_keybay]

3 minutes ago, Phi for All said:

Who considers this patient dead after a single instant? Not any doctor I know. According to you, they've all been incompetent for centuries. 

I can cite the Peterkin's post if you want, in which he referred explicitly how the death and which parameters are relevant in order to determine it like such. I simply mentioned the fact that even if a brain does not produce any electrical signal for a very short timed period, it can be considerable as "dead" (obviously not as definitive) -therefore I don't see how you connect it to stating some medical incompetence. Of course there are incompetent doctors: do you know the principle of statistics? The more people are actually doctors - the more probability increases to have incompetent practitioners? I think that's logical enough. According to my assumptions, nowadays the number of medical practitioners is relatively higher than how it was during the history.