AwareofAware

Evolving news on the science, writing and thinking about Near Death Experiences (NDEs)

15 Apr 2024
40 Comments

My Last Ever Post On Work By Borjigin.

I don’t want to spend too long on this as I have already made the key points in the previous post, but I do want to highlight how utterly fallacious Borjigin’s assertions about NDEs are . This link to a video of her reviewing her work was provided by Dave:

The link was accompanied by a question from Dave, which I am sure many lay people would ask after watching this video:

“Borjigin seems to present data that shows the brain activity still continues for minutes after cardiac arrest, not just 30 seconds…. doesn’t her evidence in this talk show that the brain can continue receiving electrical signals for long periods [after CA]?”

Firstly, I do not want to launch an ad hominin attack on Borjigin (I have had to temper some of my language on second edit), but having watched this video there are only two possible conclusions that you can draw about her as a scientist when she presents a slide like the one below.

She claims that she has disproved the key assumption that Pim Van Lommel and other proponents of NDEs make, namely that the brain stops being active at the point of or very soon after Cardiac arrest [begins] (10-20 seconds maximum) and that therefore consciousness is not possible and so NDEs are evidence that the consciousness, or soul, persists beyond death.

Borjigin claims that her data shows that in both animals and humans that the brain is showing signs of consciousness for long periods during cardiac arrest. She says “We win!”.

Her claim is demonstrably false and they haven’t “won”.

This is what Borjigin has shown:

  1. When cardiac arrest is induced in rats, there is brain activity for up to 20 seconds afterwards.
  2. When rats are killed slowly by denying them oxygen (asphyxia) their brains show increased activity for a period after asphyxia, but it stops before cardiac arrest.
  3. In 2 human coma patients she shows a similar result in that when oxygen is withdrawn, there is an increase in EEG activity (and the heart rate goes up). All EEG and ECG activity stop simultaneously after about 5 minutes i.e. brain activity ceases at the point of cardiac arrest…which is the common observation of most ER doctors, and actually proves what Van Lommel says i.e. the brain ceases activity at or very soon after CA.

Clearly something is not adding up with what she is saying. It is either a deliberate attempt to deceive or a gross misunderstanding of the key term under consideration in this paper and Van Lommel’s assertion. It is quite embarrassing for Borjigin, but I am starting to wonder if it is the latter, although still entertaining the former.

Borjigin is equating the onset of asphyxia with the beginning of Cardiac Arrest. Let’s just once again look at the definition of cardiac arrest, the definition used by physicians, cardiologists etc and most certainly Van Lommel, Greyson, Parnia et al:

“Cardiac arrest occurs when the heart suddenly and unexpectedly stops pumping. If this happens, blood stops flowing to the brain and other vital organs.” NIH defintion

Cardiac arrest is when the heart has stopped beating. CARDIAC ARREST IS NOT THE PERIOD OF CARDIAC ACTIVITY PRIOR TO THE HEART STOPPING, THE PERIOD THAT BORJIGIN IS DISCUSSING.

By using the point at which oxygen is withdrawn to define the beginning of cardiac arrest is either extremely mendacious or extremely ignorant, and in doing so Borjigin manufactures her widely reported and, at least by the complicit materialist types, accepted fallacy that brain activity continues for long periods during Cardiac Arrest.

I am now going to do my own analogous experiment. Hold on…

….OK, I’m back. I breathed normally, then, without taking a deep breath, halfway through exhaling, I grabbed my nose, and sealed my lips. After 45 seconds in a “Borjigin defined Cardiac Arrest”, I started to get quite anxious. My brain was running hot (or to quote Borjigin “literally brain on fire.”), so I took a breath. That is the EEG activity she is describing (albeit in comatose patients without oxygen or rats breathing in CO2). I kid you not.

I think the BEARS idea makes obvious sense (the brain goes into meltdown when the blood it is receiving contains less oxygen than needed), but only while the heart is beating and as for the brain stopping the heart to preserve brain function…let’s just say that towards the end of the video some of her arguments descend into farce, replete with glaring contradictions. As a scientist myself, my cringeometer was off the chart. I had to stop, it was excruciating, I would have thrown something at my expensive new Samsung TV.

I am happy to answer any questions you have about this video and Borjigin’s work in this post, but I will not waste another full post on her nonsense.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , ,
03 Apr 2024
34 Comments

When does misleading become lying?

Follow up from the Guardian article.

This is a quick follow up to my post on the Guardian article yesterday in which various claims about activity of the brain after cardiac arrest were made by the journalist, probably based on what was said by the researcher, Jimo Borjigin.

Reminder of the egregious line in the Guardian, which is fundamental to understanding whether or not NDEs could be a result of brain activity or not:

After cardiac arrest, blood and oxygen stop circulating through the body, cells begin to break down, and normal electrical activity in the brain gets disrupted. But the organs don’t fail irreversibly right away, and the brain doesn’t necessarily cease functioning altogether.

I stated in my post that that it does cease functioning in the coma patients (in rats it goes on for about 30 seconds). This was from my memory of the original paper, which I have been reading again this morning. In this paper Borjigin says this in the conclusion:

These data demonstrate that the human brain can be active during cardiac arrest.

Although this is subtly different from what the journalist says, who states activity is after, it is in itself still misleading, and where I start to wonder if another word associated with mendaciousness would be more appropriate. First the Johns Hopkins definition of Cardiac arrest:

Cardiac arrest, also known as sudden cardiac arrest, is when the heart stops beating suddenly. The lack of blood flow to the brain and other organs can cause a person to lose consciousness, become disabled or die if not treated immediately.

Cardiac arrest is when the heart has stopped beating. Here is the ECG data from the Borjigin study:

Patient 1 is the subject from whom they have most of the data and indeed draw many of the conclusions they make from. Patient 1 had a longer period of EEG activity. Note the Average HR in each time period (S1-11) never drops to zero, although during 8-9 the HR falls to below levels that would sustain consciousness, and arguably is in Cardiac arrest, up to S7 the HR is normal, then in S7 it starts dropping as the lack of oxygen and life support causes the beginning of CA. Now look at the EEG vs ECG data for patient 1:

In the paper Borjigin makes much of the coupling of gamma waves across different frequencies. If I’m honest I don’t have the expertise to understand exactly what she is saying, but to the untrained eye, most of the relevant activity seems to stop after S2 when the heart is still beating fairly normally. However, at the beginning of S2 there is a huge change in the conditions the body is experiencing – life support in the form of oxygen has been withdrawn. Is this uptick in EEG activity just the brain trying to induce consciousness so that the consciousness can react to whatever is causing the catastrophic change? Why make the assumption that this is what is causing NDEs when there could multiple explanations.

I have a little analogy here, and I don’t know how relevant it is. Some nights I have sleep apnea later in the night and I have noticed something about my dreams just before I wake up…they suddenly turn into nightmares. This morning I had just such an episode. The dream was going all very well, then suddenly I was about to go over a cliff. I awoke and realised that I was gulping air and so had an episode of sleep apnea. My dreaming conscious state basically gave my brain a kick up the backside due to lack of oxygen. Is that is what is happening with these patients (well patient 1 and 3 who show this)? The lack of oxygen is causing the brain to induce a conscious state of alertness, only with these patients, for whatever underlying pathological reason, the ability to physically wake up is impossible.

So, during S2 it is entirely plausible that the person is experiencing conscious activity. It is not unreasonable to speculate that this could be an experience like an NDE, but given that neither rats or comatose humans have any reports of NDEs we will not know. Given my experience, these nightmares are all random in nature…definitely no peace! Patients with sleep apnea have been studied widely, and I am sure there are plenty with EEG data (in fact I know there are as I once worked in sleep medicine), it would be interesting to know what happened to their EEG when there was an apnea as it is a good analogue of what might be happening here.

Here is patient 3:

In this instance the author does not claim there is much gamma coupling outside of phase 2.

All this is interesting, and thought provoking, and points to the potential of conscious activity immediately prior to death in coma patients, but absolutely does not support the sentence used in the Guardian and let’s just lay the facts out that we have from all research on this subject:

  • EEG associated with conscious activity has been reported just prior to CA and death in coma patients
  • EEG activity that could be associated with conscious activity has been reported up to 30 seconds after death in rats
  • EEG activity that could be associated with conscious activity has been reported in patients receiving CPR (and therefore a supply of oxygenated blood to the brain) up to 60 minutes after CA
  • In none of these instances has there been any reports of actual conscious activity by humans (or rats), let alone an NDE

Researchers and journalists that try to use this data to suggest that conscious activity extends into post CA for more than 20-30 seconds without artificial assistance are misleading at best. It is shameful when this is such an important subject.

Posted in Uncategorized
02 Apr 2024
40 Comments

Media Manipulation – The Guardian

I am in the process of writing my piece on Psychedelics, but today the Guardian followed up its recent interview with Sam Parnia, with this, and I decided it was worth addressing since your friends and family may bring it up (my mother has already!). The Psychedelics article is coming…promise!

This article starts out with a fairly balanced account of how the field of NDE research evolved. It lulls you into a false sense of security that the balance will continue, but whenever you read the name Borjigin referred to in terms of progress in understanding, then you know that balance is likely to evaporate very quickly.

My previous post relates to the kind of work that Borjigin does, and the data that she has produced. In summary, and for the umpteenth time, Borjigin and others have shown that in rats brains activity can persist for maybe up to a minute after death without CPR. The studies in human coma patients have shown that immediately prior to death, and immediately after life support is withdrawn, coma patients have a number of minutes in which the brain produces EEG data that might be associated with consciousness. Moreover, Parnia’s own data has shown that the brain is capable of producing activity that might be associated with consciousness up to an hour after CA but while CPR is being administered and therefore while there is still oxygenated blood flow to the brain. I have explained ad nauseum here why this data, while interesting, says absolutely nothing at all about NDEs since no NDE has to date been reported that could even be associated with, let alone correlated with EEG activity. Nothing. Using the coma patients is particularly egregious since the patients had no reported EEG activity after death.

However, because of the profile of the Guardian, and the bias that emerges towards the end of this article, it is my duty to provide a reminder to people on here that to draw the conclusion that this EEG activity is the cause of NDEs is a gross conflation. The author also makes false assumptions:

As more and more people were resuscitated, scientists learned that, even in its acute final stages, death is not a point, but a process. After cardiac arrest, blood and oxygen stop circulating through the body, cells begin to break down, and normal electrical activity in the brain gets disrupted. But the organs don’t fail irreversibly right away, and the brain doesn’t necessarily cease functioning altogether.

Yes it does. Without the flow of oxygenated blood, the brain stops functioning after about 30 seconds. The journalist has misunderstood the findings of the studies, or is deliberately misrepresenting the findings of the studies. This is the kind of understanding that is picked up by the reader who goes on to parrot or paraphrase that “the brain can work for hours after death”. As we on here know, it is capable of working hours after death provided that cellular death has not occurred on too large a scale, but without the flow of oxygenated blood, it does not work. Just like a computer without power. I suspect that this misunderstanding was helped by Borjigin who we well know can be misleading in the use of language:

At the very least, Patient One’s brain activity – and the activity in the dying brain of another patient Borjigin studied, a 77-year-old woman known as Patient Three – seems to close the door on the argument that the brain always and nearly immediately ceases to function in a coherent manner in the moments after clinical death. “The brain, contrary to everybody’s belief, is actually super active during cardiac arrest,” Borjigin said. Death may be far more alive than we ever thought possible.

The implication is that the brain is active in CA for long periods without CPR. There is zero evidence to support this and decades of data to contradict it. WITHOUT THE SUPPLY OF OXYGENATED BLOOD THE BRAIN BECOMES COMPLETELY INACTIVE WITHIN A MINUTE OF DEATH AT MOST (and usually within 20-30 seconds).

Unfortunately once such a fundamental false understanding is assumed to be fact, then you know that the article can only go one way…and it does.

“So far, there is no sufficiently rigorous, convincing empirical evidence that people can observe their surroundings during a near-death experience,” Charlotte Martial, the University of Liège neuroscientist, told me. The parapsychologists tend to push back by arguing that even if each of the cases of veridical near-death experiences leaves room for scientific doubt, surely the accumulation of dozens of these reports must count for something. But that argument can be turned on its head: if there are so many genuine instances of consciousness surviving death, then why should it have so far proven impossible to catch one empirically?

Definition of empirical: based on, concerned with, or verifiable by observation or experience rather than theory or pure logic.

Using this definition then the 130 odd cases in the The Self Does Not Die is empirical evidence. What he really means is scientifically verified cases, i.e. cases that have been proven using the scientific method. Create hypothesis to explain a phenomenon – devise experiment to test hypothesis – results from experiment verify or falsify hypothesis. The ‘journalist’ does not explore the possible reasons why there have to date been no scientifically verified OBEs, but I have explained many times on here why the AWARE studies have not provided a scientifically validated OBE. This shows his bias, in that he will only come up with materialist objections.

This is super interesting though:

Borjigin hopes that understanding the neurophysiology of death can help us to reverse it. She already has brain activity data from dozens of deceased patients that she is waiting to analyse. But because of the paranormal stigma associated with near-death studies, she says, few research agencies want to grant her funding. “Consciousness is almost a dirty word amongst funders,” she added. “Hardcore scientists think research into it should belong to maybe theology, philosophy, but not in hardcore science. Other people ask, ‘What’s the use? The patients are gonna die anyway, so why study that process? There’s nothing you can do about it.’”

This is proof, as if we needed it, that the scientific community, or the funding establishment, is overtly suppressing research into this most important of fields – even when the research might support a materialistic finding! Parnia has alluded to this before. It stinks, but there is nothing we can do about it.

Towards the end we see the author’s bias against anyone who entertains belief in the possibility that these experiences might be real and evidence of the understanding that the consciousness persists after physical death. This is overt gaslighting of anyone who might be “NDE curious”:

Meanwhile, in parts of the culture where enthusiasm is reserved not for scientific discovery in this world, but for absolution or benediction in the next, the spiritualists, along with sundry other kooks and grifters, are busily peddling their tales of the afterlife. Forget the proverbial tunnel of light: in America in particular, a pipeline of money has been discovered from death’s door, through Christian media, to the New York Times bestseller list and thence to the fawning, gullible armchairs of the nation’s daytime talk shows. First stop, paradise; next stop, Dr Oz.

Now, while I say it is gaslighting, I have a little sympathy for this position. Having spent a number of months going through YouTube NDE accounts, and reviewing the literature of “post tunnel events”, my position on NDEs has subtly changed. OBEs are objective, but what happens once people venture beyond the observations they make of this world, while having some common core themes, are so utterly different and unique, that I am coming to some conclusions about them that differ from the mainstream NDE community position. This will be presented in my next non-fiction book which I will publish later this year (after Part 1 of my fiction book is complete). However, this section of the article is 100% gaslighting and is deliberately attempting to manipulate those who may be “NDE-curious” into scuttling back into their materialist pens lest they be regarded as kooks or gullible. Nasty.

So if someone brings this article up and says “I read an article that says there is proof the brain is active for long times after CA and that is causing NDEs” hopefully you will now be suitably equipped to put them straight. If not then review the countless posts I have created responding to these claims before.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , ,
05 Feb 2024
90 Comments

Do Rats Have NDEs?

Apologies for the weird image, but this was my first attempt at using AI!

This study looks at what happens to rat brains around the time of death.

The main difference between this and the previous (infamous) rat study published by Borjigin in 2013 is that it analyses what happens through different layers of the brain to see if activity occurs at deeper levels for differing periods of time. The short answer to the question of whether there are differences is that for the most part, and in terms of differences that would be important to our area of interest – conscious activity – there are no major distinguishable differences in the timings and nature of initial activity in the different layers of brain immediately after death.

The diagram shows the rough timings with ECoG vs heart rate and blood oxygen levels (SpO2). ECoG (electrocorticogram) is invasive and uses probes that penetrate the exposed surface of the brain, as opposed to EEG – (electroencephalogram) which uses sensors placed on the scalp. This enables the study to identify electrical activity deeper in the brain.

What we see is that about 30 seconds after the removal of oxygen the heartbeat slows quickly to about 10% of its normal rate, then within about another 30 seconds normal brain activity ceases and the ECoG flatlines or becomes “isoelectric”. During this 30 seconds after CA it is plausible that conscious activity could occur. This is the claim made in the Bojigin study that got the materialist community so excited since it could be argued that NDEs occurred during this period. This paper references that discussion without asserting any new conclusions, or indeed using the findings from this study to confirm those conclusions. They have nothing to say about rats having NDEs. Well done, that is good science.

About a minute after brain activity has stopped, brain cells (neurons) undergo depolarisation (WAD). This basically means the cells move to a a non-functional, but recoverable state. Prior to this they are in a state of readiness and functional, but are not functioning. During this wave of depolarisation there is a slow wave electrical signal. This is not associated with conscious activity and is just a marker of the change in electrical state of the brain. Unlike the initial activity, this wave is not synchronous across all layers, i.e. it occurs like a wave spreading across the layers. Resuming the flow of oxygen allows for the brain to slowly recover activity.

Other than showing that the changes in brain activity that occur immediately after death are uniform through all layers of the brain, they also demonstrated that subsequent depolarisation is triggered in a set of neurons in a specific layer, and the WAD spreads from this locale. This is all very interesting if you are neurobiologist, but what does it mean for NDEs?

Unfortunately there were no able to recall awareness in follow up interviews, hence the lack of statements on Rat NDEs. As a result this study does not provide any new data to inform us about the viability of conscious activity immediately around the time of death. We knew that EEG activity that may be associated with consciousness persisted for about half a minute after CA from the previous rat study and the coma patients who had their life support withdrawn. Without any reports from the rats or dead coma patients of recollections of AWARENESS, it is impossible to correlate this activity with NDEs.

Let’s for a moment consider the wider implications of this in light of Parnia’s disinhibition hypothesis. As I have said before I have no beef with the hypothesis itself – namely that at some point after death the brain enters a different state in which consciousness is able to access previously unknown dimensions of reality. It may even be that dissociation occurs and the consciousness and brain part company and that this may be associated with specific markers observed on EEG – in fact if you adhere to the dualist philosophy, then it makes perfect sense. My beef is…well read previous posts! Presumably the brain would dissociate or become disinhibited while activity is still observed on the EEG or in this case ECoG, in which case it must happen in the first 30 seconds after CA (and in the absence of CPR or alternative life support). It is possible that full dissociation occurs during the WAD phase, but there are no markers of consciousness associated with this.

One of the limitations of the AWARE II study was the fact that on average it took over 4 minutes after CA for the specially designed crash carts to reach the resuscitation suites and another minute to get ready. This means that the first moments of any OBE, which presumably begin 30 seconds, or at the latest, a minute after CA, would be missed. In fact it is highly likely that if the OBE starts immediately after the EEG stops, then the crash cart probably arrives after the consciousness has been sucked up the tunnel!

Another post on a paper reviewing psychedelics and NDE-like experiences will appear before long. In the meantime, if you didn’t buy my book previously, then I have uploaded an updated version that contains an analysis of the AWARE II publication from last year, along with 7 OBEs that were verified by HCPs that are in my view every bit as convincing as iPad verified OBE – I am running a free promotion for 3 days on the Kindle version. It is available in all Amazon markets:

If you can’t be bothered reading my book or have read it already, but just want to “tip” me (Orson – real name) because you enjoy my work, then click below:

Buy Orson a Coffee

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , ,
14 Dec 2023
121 Comments

I am in good company!

It appears that I am not the only one who finds Parnia’s disinhibition assertions disconcerting (try saying that fast after a couple of glasses of wine!).

It is fine theorising that this may be what is going on, but the fact is some of his comments regarding the factuality of his hypothesis to the media (the Guardian and BBC in particular) seem to move beyond the word “may” to “is”. I have provided examples of this in previous posts, and it seems that two of the most respected researchers in this field have made some comments, to which Parnia has decided to reply in the journal (click on the pic for full article):

Now I can’t find the original comments, but it seems they stated that the subjects were not conscious. The fact is we do not know what was going on, so it is wrong to assert that there is or is not activity of any kind that is truly conscious. Since the vast majority of examples of EEG activity were in patients who sadly died, we do not know whether they had conscious experiences. Personally I believe the patients with EEG activity may have had some sort of CPRIC episode if anything, but I do not know that, no more than Parnia knows whether they had a disinhibition episode.

The fact is that only 2 of the 28 patients who were interviewed had interpretable EEG data. It is not mentioned whether there was activity or not, but either way these patients were not in the 11 who had recollections from their time during CA. If anything this would provide evidence against Parnia’s hypothesis.

I think that it is OK hypothesising as he does in the paper, but some of his recent media noise has gone beyond this, and I suspect that is why these two great men have given their esteemed colleague an academic poke. A part of me wonders if he is playing a much deeper game here, but I will keep my thoughts on that to myself.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , , , , , , , , ,
18 Nov 2023
58 Comments

Top Five NDEs

The most compelling veridical NDEs

In the absence of a scientifically verified OBE, I am going to update my book with the latest results from AWARE II and supplement it with the most compelling HCP (healthcare professional) verified OBEs. This is my starter list, please please add ones you think are more compelling or more recent in the comments then I will create a poll – remember they must be HCP verified:

Pam Reynolds

Dr Chris Yerrington’s case

Dr Rudy’s case

AWARE I NDE

Van Lommel study OBE

I want to include Maria and the Nike shoe (described by Kimberly Sharp in After the Light) but has this ever been verified in a documented manner by one of the attending HCPs? All the others have an MD or a senior nurse prepared to put their name to it.

Posted in Uncategorized and tagged , , ,
01 Nov 2023
27 Comments

Guardian Podcast with Parnia

Thanks Dylan for being first off the mark to notice this, much appreciated.

Click the pic to access the interview with Sam Parnia

I’ve now had a chance to listen this, and I would say it is possibly his best interview yet, so really recommend listening.

He clearly articulates his position on a number of different issues that we have discussed numerous times. He also asserts the fact we have been unable to understand consciousness from a scientific perspective, and that this entity is most likely separate and persists beyond death.

The skill with which he is able to articulate this in a manner that is digestible to the scientific community is outstanding. Despite the background “spook” Halloween music which could have undermined the credibility of what he was saying, he comes across as well balanced and engaged in genuine unbiased research to enhance our understanding of this topic. There are a couple of points that irk me, and one howler, but I’ve spent a lot of time already on them so won’t go there again for now.

The Guardian is a very skeptical newspaper so it is good for this to have appeared there.

Posted in Uncategorized
19 Oct 2023
37 Comments

Sam Parnia’s position in his own words:

Thank you Thomas for finding this. It is well worth a listen for all those who follow this blog and the AWARE studies. All the key positions are covered in the interview, and most importantly Parnia puts himself in the camp of scientists who believe that the brain hosts consciousness rather produces consciousness. Here is the link where you can find the 25 min audio clip:

https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/sunday/audio/2018908278/dr-sam-parnia-life-death-and-in-between

In general it was a really good interview. He comes across as extremely rational, thoughtful and balanced. I really liked his in depth explanation of the issues around medium term cellular viability, reperfusion injury and how the latter might be prevented. This is a big deal in the CPR world.

However, there are some positions he takes that I just cannot agree with, and that is not because I am experiencing cognitive dissonance (his explanation for people being unable to understand the idea of dualism when their minds are grounded in materialism). For me it is lack of evidence, or even evidence to the contrary that causes me to disagree with him on a few points, but also agree on others:

On prevalence of NDEs:

On remembering NDEs: he uses a “lunch” analogy and everyone remembers that they had lunch a week ago but don’t always remember what they had. Might be a useful analogy, but in his case not helpful to his position that most people have NDEs but can’t remember them. This analogy would suggest that if you had an NDE, you might not remember the details (although people tend to) but you would remember that you had an NDE. I use this in my book when discussing the issue of only 10% of elderly adults having recall.

On prevalence of lucid experiences:

He also says that he has evidence which suggests that many, if not all, are having lucid experiences during CPR. Unless he has something that he hasn’t presented, he does not have evidence to suggest this at all. He just has EEG signals not associated with anything other than performing CPR. Specifically he says:

“Conclusively, 40% of EEG changed to near normal up to 1 hour after”.

Firstly, 40% is not most people, but even the 40% is a bit of a stretch. This is taken directly from the AWARE II paper:

Importantly, near-normal/physiological EEG consistent with consciousness also emerged: delta, theta activity in 22% and 12% respectively (up to CPR 60 minutes), alpha 6% of data/images (up to CPR 35 minutes) and beta 1% (Fig. 2B).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.resuscitation.2023.109903

If you add them all up they come to 40%, but delta and theta are associated with deep (dreamless) sleep or drowsiness, only alpha and beta are regarded as being associated with being awake or conscious, so at a push you might be able to say that only 7% had EEG that might be indicative of consciousness. (Mery, or Tim…pretty please…comment here). I am not an expert on EEG, but that is my understanding using this article as a source.

Link to an article on EEG and consciousness

I get why Sam is doing this, but I am not completely certain about it being 100% accurate. He is implying that nearly everyone has conscious activity during CPR. That is, putting it as politely as I can and given the data from his paper, not aligned with the facts.

RED vs NDE:

He says this distinction is important to differentiate experiences. Won’t go there, but I still prefer NDE.

On the process of dying

He describes it in terms of a process, a grey area, rather than binary dead vs alive. In physiological terms, I would agree…the grey area is between the definition of medical death (absence of vitals signs) and irreversible death (the legal definition and the source of a rather horrid falling out with Tim). Given the enduring viability of brain cells, the body is not permanently dead, but in terms of consciousness, it may be different, and that is where his hypothesis about disinhibition is interesting.

On his disinhibition discussions around 22:20

He says they have uncovered the mechanism that explains what may be going. Flatlining of the brain removes braking systems, people then get access to dormant parts of their brain and are able to access new dimensions of reality. This is a real experience that emerges with death.

If your brain has stopped working, how can you access dormant parts of it? Despite the wobbly rationale deployed, I like the disinhibition idea, and that the tethering normally holding the consciousness to the brain, is being released, but I think he needs to be lighter on the details as he has no real evidence for anything more than something may be going on. However, he has to build a bridge for materialists to walk over, and using the terms he does may achieve this.

Bad NDEs

He dismisses horrible NDEs as not being NDEs again, and attributes them to waking up in the ICU. This is contrary to the evidence provided in papers on negative NDEs. Been discussed before, so won’t go there again.

Overall a really good interview, that puts beyond any doubt his position on dualism, but I wish he would stick to what the evidence specifically allows for, rather than speculating way beyond those boundaries. That would be boring though and not be good entertainment, or newsworthy.

Posted in Uncategorized
05 Oct 2023
45 Comments

Brain Disinhibition Hypothesis

More from the Parnia lab. They have posted a graphic of their hypothesis on Instagram.

I like that they use the word “possible” in front of marker. I don’t like that they have 85 patients had EEG data with 20% of survivors having REDs right beneath it. For those who haven’t been following this or read the wording under fig 2 in the paper, the assumption will be that there is EEG data for this 20%. There is none.

Anyway, I have said enough about of what I think of this in previous posts, so won’t repeat that here. This is a very neutral hypothesis. It is an interesting idea. I do hope they are continuing with the study. The website implies they are.

Posted in Uncategorized
24 Sep 2023
95 Comments

A Cunning Plan?

I am not in anyway comparing Dr Parnia to Baldrick, but I do wonder if he has a cunning plan.

Ten days ago the media became aware that the AWARE II study had been published. I summarised some of the responses in this post:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/09/15/news-about-aware-ii-publication-and-a-comment-about-news/

The fact was that the AWARE II study was first published in July, and I covered the main details, including the EEG data, which was not associated with any recalled experiences, in this post:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/07/11/aware-ii-final-publication-speculation-does-not-imply-association/

It seemed that some interpreted the study in a way that suggested EEG data showed the brain was producing the NDEs, and this was in part due to the somewhat illusive way in which Sam Parnia discusses that data. In written publications his inference points towards these markers of consciousness being indicative of brain activity associated with NDEs. This lead some articles, such as the Scientific American piece, to suggest that the brain was producing the NDEs:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/09/19/i-avoid-swearing-on-this-blog-but-wtf/

You can’t blame them really as is it not very clear what Parnia is inferring. Then, a few days ago, the lab posted a reel on Instagram that made their position absolutely clear, and which I covered in this post:

https://awareofaware.co/2023/09/20/clarification-of-the-speculation/

In this reel (also available on their YouTube channel) he specifically states that they were able to show the mechanism by which disinhibition occurs:

https://www.instagram.com/reel/CxdjYcApTRB/?igshid=MzRlODBiNWFlZA==

The study was able to show for the first time electrical markers of these lucid hyper conscious real experiences. We were also able to show for the first time, the mechanism by which this experience occurs, which is that as the brain shuts down the normal braking systems that hold it down. This is known as disinhibition.

This, combined with the video describing this in more detail which specifically states that the consiousnesss is not anhilated at death, and the response to Thomas’ question, discussed in my previous post, causes us to conclude that the Parnia lab is claiming that their data shows that the EEG spikes are related to this event, and are markers of the consciousness accessing these states, and possibly leaving the body. The “packing its bags and leaving” hypothesis. This is despite the paper stating that there was no EEG data for patients who had REDs.

That is where we are, and I am wondering if it is all part of “a cunning plan”. Maybe the Parnia lab, realising the materialists would cite the EEG spikes as evidence of the brain causing NDEs, created their own theory as to why we see these spikes occur. Why not? If the materialists conflate data and get it published, why can’t we?

I have huge concerns about this. Dr Parnia says that he will create another video that goes into this mechanism in more detail. It is possible that he may relate it to some of the data obtained from research into psychedelics. Whether he does or not, he must have more evidence than he has currently published that specifically associates these EEG spikes with REDs or he is, in my opinion, and with all due respect, in danger of looking a teeny tiny bit like Baldrick.

I have been covering Dr Parnia’s work for over a decade now, and have enormous respect for him and his colleagues, but that would be severely undermined if he used EEG data from patients who never reported any recollections (most likely because they sadly died) as evidence that supports this mechanism. It is absolutely fine to suggest it as a hypothesis which must be proven in bigger studies, but to actually say that it “shows” something is going on is a step too far. It quite simply doesn’t unless he shows new data. I don’t want people to pile in here, as I said I like Dr Parnia a lot, but what he says must be consistent with the published or presented evidence or his work is no more credible than the various studies I have discussed here in which scientists state that a bit of EEG activity in rats or coma patients around the time of CA proves NDEs are the result of brain activity.

In summary, given the data we have been provided with it is impossible to draw any conclusions about the nature of what, if anything, is going on with the patients who had EEG spikes. End of.

Posted in Uncategorized

Post Navigation

← Older Entries