I realize one of the hardest parts of my newsletter for many to read is the Scientific Counterpoint. For those who have experienced spiritual visions, too often they are used to being ridiculed and dismissed, sometimes by their own doctors. My skeptics certainly do NOT do that, although sometimes they do poke some gentle fun, as I do myself. Let's have some fun with our dialogue, as death and dying can be a heavy topic.

If you want to hear someone really making hilarious fun of near death research, spend some time with Raymond Moody, the Grandfather of the field.

The skeptical viewpoint is needed, as simply telling stories again and again has been done for over 100 years, and has not led to any new understandings of spiritual visions. I was very disappointed to read an article by Ian Stevenson, Bruce Greyson and Emily Cook, giants in the field, and yet it was only a rehash of stories again, without and clear cut conclusion. (Recent article in Journal of Scientific Exploration)

The stakes are high. If we can intergrate man's spiritual and rational side, we could see a reduction in health care costs of 20-30%, unlock the secrets of mind-body healing, and learn to live happier, healthier lives. Many of society's problems, from homelessness, to overuse of Ritalin in schools, to the epidemic of depression in adults with its resultant drugs and alcohol abuse or astonishing rise in anti-depressant use, are ultimately spiritual problems.

One of the strengths of the newsletter is that I have recruited the top scientists in the country to be skeptics. Dan Stowens is easily one of the top Pediatric Neurologists in the country. Dan Garratty is a top DNA researcher from the Fred Hutchison Cancer Research Institute. Their writtings in the newsletter have angered many, but at least they are thoughtful, rational, and are trying to make a point.

Just spend a few minutes reading the comments of "Pierre" on this message board, and you will see why I recruited them, and why we need them.

"Pierre" starts out like most skeptics, emphasizing his credentials, but will not use his name. He then acknowledges he is unfamiliar with the literature. Even though he says his expertise is in Aerospace Medicine, he does not bother to look up the work of Jim Whinnery, who writes in Aerospace Medical Journals.

He engages what seems to be a dialogue, but unfortunatley, the bottom line for him is to say "yeah, sure". In 25 years of academic medicine, I have never heard a true scientist say "yeah, sure" in debating a scientific topic. My teenagers say it all the time.

"Pierre" (who is NOT Pierre Jovanovic) is in good company. I once heard Sherwin Newland, winner of a National Book Award for his work on death and dying, dismiss near death research as "simple hallucinations". The pseudoscientist Susan Blackmore, who belongs to CSICOPS, an organization devoted to exposing pseudoscientists, told Audrey Baker of ABC news, that my research was "rubbish".

Maybe my research is "rubbish", but you have to say why, with references, etc.

In Volume 4, I have asked our skeptics to directly address my own research. I have a thick skin, and can take it, and am happy to. I do not want people to think I am just having them take on other researchers.

I think you will agree that their attack on my research is funny, witty, brings new information to the table, and in the process of poking holes in my research, leads the reader to new ideas.

So, come on all you so called skeptics out there. Do your homework, read the literature, and if you really are scientifically trained, as our imposter "Pierre" clearly is not, remember the principles of referencing your comments, standing behind your comments with your true name, stating your credentials, and use a logical line of reasoning.

Finally, remember that this board is read by grieving parents and other struggling to deal with spiritual visions. Mean spirited or negative comments are particularly out of place on this Board. I have reviewed what is out there, and I am sure that "Pierre" can find a good home for his comments.

This board is easily the most exciting and thoughtful Message Board on the net, it makes a survival based research board I belong to look tepid and dull.

My rules are simple. Act the way we expect five year olds to act. Be nice, be kind, it is possible to discuss opposing viewpoints without resorting to insults or negative comments.

"Yeah sure" is far too often the final word from skeptics. In such comments, we understand the bankrupt nature of their intellectual thought.

Melvin Morse