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

Life has a case fatality rate of 100%

I received an email from Eduardo last week in which he echoed something that I had been thinking during this coronavirus nightmare which everyone has suddenly been engulfed by. He said that if Sam Parnia has any “informative” data beyond what he presented at AHA last fall, then now would be the morally right time to share it. The rationale for this is that many people are scared to death of this virus, and in fear of their, or their loved ones, lives, and that having more evidence that our souls, or consciousness, survive death would provide enormous comfort for millions.

I completely agree. My own personal faith, which arises from a number of things including a certainty that life was not due to a spontaneous natural process (as discussed in my book, DNA: The Elephant In The Lab), and my knowledge of NDEs, helps me put the 0.5-4% risk of dying from this bug in perspective. So too does the simple fact stated in the title of this topic. Whether you die a lonely “premature” death gasping for breath in a crowded field hospital in the next 2 months, or whether it is in your 90s gently slipping away surrounded by your children and grandchildren…you will die…and if there’s something “eternal” beyond, then that puts death at any time in its place.

In my book, Aware of Aware which I self-published in 2013, and which this blog is named after, I discuss this in detail and how knowledge of NDEs can help us in many ways in this life. (By the way, don’t buy the book, it is terrible, I am in the process of writing a new one). Here is an excerpt from very near the end:


“I know other scary things much closer to home. I work on treatments for HIV. I know that there is the potential for a virus to appear that could eliminate mankind. I haven’t even mentioned nuclear weapons or asteroids. Anyway, you see where I’m going. The human race could end tomorrow. For many people, and it could be you, life will end tomorrow anyway. Maybe the Being Of Light wants to give those of us left, a last ditch chance to get our spiritual house in order.”


I was going to delay the publication of my revised and hopefully much improved book on the evidence around NDEs until the AWARE study had indisputable proof of verified OBEs, but I have decided to go full steam ahead now. My reasoning for this change of plan is partly due to what I just said, namely that I believe it is important that people should be thinking about these things today. I hope that the perspective I have gained from following this subject for years provides insights that may benefit the lives of others now…and for some that may be important. The other reason is related to the whole chloroquine issue.

Now, I am not going to get into too much detail here, and definitely don’t want to enter a debate or discussion about it. The reason I bring it up is due to the reasoning process which is related to the NDE subject, as you will see.

Given there a number of different studies, albeit small non-randomized single cohort studies, combined with very positive in vitro data, and an announcement that the Chinese found Chloroquine to be significantly better in reducing symptoms and presence of virus than standard of care in 100 patients vs controls, and that as a result they would include it in their COVID-19 treatment guidelines, I am inclined to be more optimistic than pessimistic about the prospects that this drug holds. For those who don’t know, I have a Ph.D. in medicinal chemistry from the 1990s in which I designed anti-viral drugs. I also spent a significant chunk of my career in virology and anti-infectives, so I have seen new treatments emerge over the years for various conditions, and sometimes the early signals showing promise for new indications of existing medications take a similar path to the one we are witnessing with chloroquine. Also, in such circumstances, as you do now, you see the research and medical community divided equally.

Some are early adopters and see the potential and run with it, especially when there are no other options. They would even feel that they would be negligent if they didn’t. Others need data from large randomized double blinded multi-center studies before they will risk a new treatment on their patients. There is no absolute right or wrong in this until we know for sure. It may well be that chloroquine doesn’t work, but if I was a doctor, I would be prescribing this for my patients given what data we have, the lack of alternatives, and the good understanding we have of its safety profile. What is there to lose by doing it, provided the side effects are understood? (I strongly advise against self-medicating chloroquine for treatment of COVID-19 – used at the wrong dose can result in serious, and even fatal side effects. All use should be under the guidance of a qualified health care professional)

With NDEs we are now in a similar situation I believe. We have thousands of accounts of NDEs and OBEs from credible people, many of which have been verified by equally credible health care professionals. We also have a number of peer reviewed studies looking at retrospective accounts. We also have a small number of prospective studies (3 now I believe) in which OBEs were verified by health care professionals in the study. For the “early adopters”, like myself, this is enough. What have you got to lose by believing this stuff? You will live life without fear etc and actually be excited at the prospect of what lies ahead. Refusal to believe may have negative impacts on your spirituality though.

AWARE II has always promised to be the study that tips the balance of evidence. If it had any scientifically verified OBEs, either auditory or visual, then it really becomes irrational to remain skeptical when combined with all the other evidence, just like if another respected doctor comes forward with even better cohort data in the next week or two about chloroquine. This would be important for many people.

I believe that the AHA data does contain scientifically verified auditory OBEs in which patients who couldn’t possibly have heard what was going on in the room because they had headphones playing music AND had no EEG/oximetry data to support the presence of consciousness, did hear documented discussions. However, despite multiple requests from myself and others for clarification on this issue, Dr Parnia had not responded with answers that he surely must have.

I have enormous respect for Dr Parnia…huge huge respect. I have sent him yet another message, via the research portal this time, asking for some clarification on this, and whether there are any other cases of interest. I know that at this time he will be overwhelmed with work in New York City, very very important work, but I believe that it is actually more important for humanity that if he is sitting on any significant data that he shares it sooner rather than later. I know he asked us to be patient, but there are limits.

Anyway, whether or not he responds to my plea for clarification on the AHA data, I will be pushing ahead with my book, and my next post will contain a link to a chapter that I would love people here to read and help me refine. Probably late April or early May



Single Post Navigation

79 thoughts on “Life has a case fatality rate of 100%

  1. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    What I understood, as I read and if you do not misinterpret, is that the scientific journals that carried out the peer review of the required study, have a signed contract that grants them the exclusivity of full publication of the final results. I think that perhaps Parnía is impeded for this reason … In any case, it would be up to the scientific journal in question to rescind or nullify this restrictive contractual clause. Consequently the initiative should come from the magazine itself, or Sam Parnia should ask her … What do you know, Ben about this?


    • The study is funded by a number of different sources, and the timing and means by which Sam Parnia conveys any information from the study will in general be entirely of his own choosing, but keeping his financial supporters in the loop and giving them first sight and opportunity for comment. The journals have absolutely nothing to do with it. They will however be loathe to accept data that has been presented in full at a conference. They like an element of exclusivity and originality to accept a publication, even if it is only an element of the data that is new, or a complete dataset vs a partial dataset. If Parnia was to say that he has scientifically verified OBEs at this stage, he would not be blowing his chances of getting published, but would definitely heighten the anticipation of publication of the full dataset, and boost sales of whichever journal accepted it.


  2. Hi.
    If we have a 100% certainity of life after life, don’t you think that many people will suicide?


    • Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

      Claudio Pisani…….I don’t have a clear answer for it … What I do know is that in one of his books dr. Raymond Moody commented that:

      “At first it was supposed that reading about NDEs or having one would increase the chances that a depressed person-someone who had attempted suicide, eg-would become even more depressed. The reasoning was that evidence of a life after death would push a person to end this life in order to start a possibly better life than the present one. To test this theory, a researcher asked a group of people who had attempted suicide to read cases of NDEs, while another group of the same size received conventional treatment. Rather than increasing the suicide rate, knowing the NDEs reduced it.
      Why? The researchers found that knowing that a life exists after death increases a person’s level of hope. Instead of wishing for his life to end, the patient felt hope, not despair, for evidence of another life. ”

      It can also be thought that if you are certain of a post-mortem life, it could help to give a greater meaning to life on earth.


    • That is a good question. Given that people who have NDEs after an attempted suicide are much more likely to have a negative NDE, then I don’t think so…but that information needs to be out there.


  3. David on said:

    It’s all hand on deck in New York right now so he is probably very very busy. I agree it was a hit. There was a local as for a hearing company. The ad begins hearing is really in the brain……I said thanks for making my case.

    Liked by 1 person

  4. David on said:

    Isaiah 65 and 66 . Not really comforting. …..their deeds and their thoughts shall end all at once….

    Liked by 1 person

  5. Hey Ben! Nice writing as always!
    Just one question: Do you really say “HIV Virus” or just “HI Virus”? It is just a small thing from the one quote from your book :)) Anyway! Stay healthy and thank you for keeping us informed!


  6. What I’m afraid of is Parnia catching this disease. He works in ICU and obviously is extremely vulnerable. Imo he is the most important person in the world right now, he should be on paid leave. Ben if you talk to him again please suggest this to him, his well being is too important to so many people.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Also Ben, you’re a researcher, you don’t work in a hospital right?


      • I now work in neuroscience, and am involved in clinical trials, regulatory approval and medical support for a new sleep medicine. My years of actually working in a lab are long behind me, and were in chemistry, not in microbiology.

        Interestingly, Remdesivir, the Gilead antiviral in COVID-19 trials relies on technology developed in the lab that I did my Ph.D. in. The technology is called Protide technology (or when I was working on it, phosphoramidate technology). The lead chemical moeity was discovered about 6 months before I joined the group, and my Ph.D. focused on trying to use on it various different nucleosides to increase selectivity against HIV HCV and HBV. I made one of the most active anti-HIV drugs ever, but unfortunately it was completely insoluble and useless in a clinical setting. Still, very proud to have been part of the team. The technology is already used in Sofosbuvir, which has saved tens of thousands of lives in HCV. It is also used in TAF, an HIV nuclotide prodrug. If you are interested in the research I conducted, google Orson Wedgwood phospohramidate (Orson is my real name – Ben Williams is the main protagonist in my novel, Deadly Medicine).

        Liked by 1 person

    • I had the same thought about his being exposed to risk. They are very brave and selfless people. Hopefully he will have seen the chloroquine data and use it if he gets symptoms. The FDA have now approved it for use in COVID-19, and HCPs should be front of the queue.


  7. Ben, I seriously doubt that Parnia will respond to any questions. I think he made that quite clear when he addressed us all ‘directly’ …”Look guys, I can’t tweet you every day about what’s just occurred in the study…these things take time”, or words to that effect.

    As to it making a big difference to the world (in this troubled time) if Parnia suddenly told us that he had a verified hit or two…I genuinely don’t think it would make that much difference.

    Yes, there’d probably be an initial surge in the mood of some interested parties, but make no mistake, the sceptics would be all over whatever data Parnia had, trying their very best to discredit it like they always do.

    Is there not already an abundance of other persuasive evidence for life after death? End of life experiences, reincarnation, mediumship etc.

    My sincere belief is that they don’t want there to an afterlife. They can’t stand the implications of it. They despise the notion that there could be an intelligence at work in the universe.

    They have nothing but contempt for those that hold such a belief and consider them to be irrational, sentimental fools who can’t face up to reality.(check out the comments on some you tube videos)

    Leaving aside Parnia’s study which is going to take many more years to collect the data he’ll need, we should also not forget that he’s already informed us that in the first stage of death (after the brain has ceased to function), the mind continues to exist.

    Doesn’t that already kind of answer the question ?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Tim. I agree with much of what you say. My one big justifiable gripe is that the data released at AHA has not been addressed publicly by him, and the obvious questions which would help everyone interpret that data have not been answered. Namely, did the people who heard conversations definitely have headphones on playing noise at the time the conversations took place? Also, were any of the patients in the other AHA poster who may have had sufficient brain oxygen to be conscious, also patients who heard the conversations…is there any data overlap at all from these 2 groups? They have that data now, and I feel it is somewhat disingenuous for him to be telling us not to be impatient when he clearly would have data that is very important to this subject, and is withholding it.

      This data is not just HIS data, it is something that belongs in the public domain because it has such huge implications for the discussion, and while you may think that 1 or 2 scientifically validated OBEs, auditory or visual, may not have much impact, I don’t completely agree. I think they could have huge impact if discussed by credible people. It’s very analagous to the emerging chloroquine story. Prof. Raoult in France released his data as a matter of urgency, before it had been properly scrutinized etc, because it made sense. Now many others are looking into and as a result an important questions will be answered properly. I am of the view that Sam should at least be more forthcoming about the AHA data. He doesn’t necessarily need to make any outrageous claims, just put it out there, and let others do with it what they want.


      • Thanks for the reply, Ben,

        Let me have a think about what you’ve said there and I’ll get back to you, for what it’s worth (to you) (obviously what I think isn’t going to change anything).

        As an aside, One or two posters on this site are continuing to make statements about the well known Pam Reynolds case that have no basis in fact, which is extremely irritating to have to witness, especially when the facts of this case have been established, checked for accuracy and published.

        1. Pam Reynolds revealed several of the important details of her NDE upon awakening to Dr Karl Greene (Dr Brown in Sabom’s book) who was tasked with looking after her post operation.

        Within a short while, Dr Spetzler, the neurosurgeon who conducted and performed the operation, was conversing with her and listening to what she said. All the veridical information (from Reynolds) was revealed there and then after the operation and many of the medics were aware of it (apparently they all descended on Barrow Institute because of the remarkable nature of the case according to Dr Allan Hamilton)

        Spetzler and his colleagues are (obviously) not near death experience researchers, so naturally they did not advertise or publish the case. They merely made note of it and left it at that. It was Reynolds herself that was instrumental (anyway) in bringing it to the attention of NDE researcher Dr Michael Sabom, because she felt it was important for the world to hear her story.

        It did indeed take three years before the case was eventually published but the facts about the case, all the veridical information was already noted by Spetzler and his colleagues.

        In 2016, an important new book was published by IANDS, The Self does not Die Titus Rivas, Rudolf Smit and Anny Dirven, in which all the facts of this case were published (including confirmation of the state of her (flat) brainwaves (during the veridical observations) some new additional information (which I discovered) along with an excellent interview with Dr Karl Greene, who confirmed the highly unusual nature of the case.

        To get to the point, Ben, would you kindly address this information to the posters who have no idea what they are talking about and persist in making incorrect claims about the case on you forum,which have no basis in fact. Thank you.

        Liked by 1 person

  8. Lukas on said:

    I personally believe there will be no hits and those cases Dr. Sam Parnia has shown us during the preliminary results will be similar in the end results.

    The reason for this is that the same thing happened in AWARE I. Where he published his best cases from his study which were not hits in my opinion long before the final results in his book Erasing Death.

    Therefore I doubt he will respond and I doubt there will be hits but I could be wrong only time will tell.


    • I think it’s now pretty obvious that comatose patients can obtain information paranormally. There’s far too many verified cases from reliable sources. They can’t all be in error, it’s statistically so unlikely.

      The patients describe separating from their physical bodies and observing events occurring around them. Sceptics say that’s impossible but nevertheless the patient’s observations do seem to support it, albeit not yet conclusively (as in experimental proof)

      I can’t see any reason why Parnia’s study will not produce a hit, eventually. But judging from his recent presentation, we shouldn’t be holding our breath. He just doesn’t have the numbers.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lukas on said:


        If anecdotes collected months in some cases years apart are evidence for you then okay but I have a much more higher standard for evidence like I said many times before here.

        Also this work with hits in NDEs studies was done many years in the past with all of them so far negative. There were experiments with this even in the year 1994.
        Some were done in small scales one even in 2000 by Dr. Sam Parnia with no hits.

        So I will also hold my breath if there will be some hits because after 20 years or more if we count the work of Dr. Sam Parnia alone. If we would count many paranormal experiments in the past we should have at least not one hit but a dozen of them that were scientifically verified with no problem but we have zero ones.

        Therefore I remain skeptical that there will be hits.


      • @Lucas

        Nothing to do with anecdotes collected months and years after the event. There are many documented cases where the patient reported the veridical content very soon after the event. Pam Reynolds reported her experience as soon as her eyes popped open, to Karl Greene who then went and told his boss, Spetzler.

        Penny Sartori’s Patient 10, similarly. Lloyd Rudy’s patient who saw the post it notes. How about Lauren Bellg’s Howard ?

        You wouldn’t want to spread misinformation about this important research, would you ?

        Fact : Only one person in a prospective study has ever reported an out of body experience where he/she even had a chance to see a hidden target and that was Patient 10 in the study referred to above. One patient out of all the prospective studies.

        The way you’ve phrased your comment, you make it sound like there’s been scores of failed target identification where there should have been a hit. No such thing!

        And in Parnia’s first attempt at studying NDE in Southampton General, only 4 patients reported an NDE. And non of those claimed to have had an out of body experience.

        Stay as sceptical as you like, but kindly get your facts straight at the same time, Lucas.

        Liked by 1 person

  9. David on said:

    We are using your Gilead drug here IllInois Thanks. We were one of the first shelter in place.

    Liked by 1 person

  10. Lukas on said:


    Again the same cases over and over we discussed?

    Pam Reynolds case happened in 1991 but it was recorded in 1994 – look in the books for this. It was 3 years when there was a official recording of her case. I am here for the official facts not what someone claims that it happened like someone claims.

    Patient 10 Penny Sartori:

    This incident occurred in November 1999. This quote is taken from the book. The study took around 5 years and ended in 2004 also there is no mentioned when this was collected preciselly in the paper – A Prospectively Studied Near-Death
    Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and Unexplained Healing
    but I doubt it was collected in the instant the person recovered and the paper proves it that his who story was recorded sometime after:

    Once fully conscious, the medical team rounding on the ward
    approached his bedside and he excitedly tried to communicate
    something to the doctors. He was unable to speak, as he was still
    connected to the ventilator. The physiotherapist provided him with
    a letter board, on which he spelled out: ‘‘I died and I watched it all from
    above.’’ This was witnessed by the doctors and nurses who were
    present on the ward rounds.The senior author then explained her research in detail to the patient and invited him to participate, and he gave written consent.
    Once he was no longer dependent on the ventilator and had regained
    his voice, the senior author interviewed him in depth.

    So it took about a few weeks until it was officially recorded and in depth. The person when he woke up said only that I died and I watched it all from above, he was not specific and did not mentioned anything beyond that. He mentioned the specifics according to that paper in the interview which was after a longer time. Also personally I doubt that he was in the black about his ordeal because after a operation you receive information what has happened to you. It is a normal procedure.

    Also there is a problem that no one saw the hidden images in Penny Sartori study. So it is a negative study.

    Lloyd Rudy:

    We discussed this before. There are no records to verify this story so again a dead end Tim. Also Dr. Rudy told his story to the world many years later and even according to the Amado Cattaneo the assistant surgeon they no longer remember when did it happened:

    This case happened some time late 1990’s early 2000’s. I do not know the patient’s identity anymore. Neither do I think we can find out, unfortunately. It has been too long and I do not have any records of that case anymore. My role was that of assistant surgeon.

    This is taken from the interview from Titus Riva from his paper: A Near-Death Experience with Veridical Perception described by a Famous Heart Surgeon and Confirmed by his Assistant Surgeon.

    As for the last case I did not read about it but if they are in line with these you mentioned they will not make a difference.

    I did not misinterpret information. I am looking it up Tim but anecdotes collected over a long period are not evidence for me even when someone claims he told it when he opened his eyes.

    I am just saying Tim that I find it very strange that self reported cases have so many OBEs like in POSITIVE TRANSFORMATIONAL EXPERIENCE AFTER CRITICAL ILLNESS: AN EXPLORATORY STUDY yet when they are under tight conditions there are little of them.

    Also yes Tim I am tired that every study like this ends in failure and therefore I am skeptical. If there are so many NDEs and OBEs in self reported studies and in anecdotes that after more then 20 years alone if we take NDE research we should have had many hits and real hits collected under normal scientific methods. Yet we have to this day nothing.


  11. Lukas on said:


    One mistake I made in The Patient 10 case that the study lasted till 2003 my mistake because I thought it started in 1999 however it started in 1998:

    The official data collection began in January 1998 and was completed in January 2003.

    However the Method also took time so there was some time before the interview was conducted and made:

    All data collection, interviews, transcribing and data analysis were undertaken by the author. Each patient interviewed was simply asked ‘Do you have any recollection of anything during the time that you were unconscious?’

    If it was apparent that a patient had undergone a NDE or OBE they were interviewed in-depth once the research had been explained and their written consent obtained.

    So there is still a time gap and the biggest problem is that no hits of hidden targets were recorded.

    This is taken from PENNY SARTORI, PHD: PROSPECTIVE STUDY from the IANDS webpage.

    Also I looked up that Howard case. According to the information I found online is that its from a recollection of Laurin’s 20 year career as an ICU doctor. Therefore I would not call that evidence in my book because its a collection of stories of her 20 year career.

    Besides the Penny Sartori study which fails to provide data when the story was recorded from the information I found. Also during that time there were no hits because no one saw the images. So we are still at point zero.


  12. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    Seeing a hidden target… There are so many objects or items in an intensive care or emergency room that it is probably very difficult for me to see a particular hidden target that has no special significance for the patient… Why should a patient focus on a particular image on a shelf (Aware I) and not, for example, on the top of the lamp in the center of the ceiling of an emergency room or on the coat rack where a medical gown is located, or whatever?

    Liked by 1 person

  13. Lukas,

    What you’ve written above, particularly regarding the timing of the interview Penny Sartori conducted with Mike (Patient 10), is just complete nonsense. I’m not going to waste my time trying to correct you (again).

    Just as bad, you’ve once again repeated the same misinformation about the Pam Reynolds case, the three years later, fallacy.

    I’ve told you all of this before and yet you just come back with the same rubbish every time, which demonstrates very adequately why there is so much misinformation on the net. It really is hopeless.

    Liked by 1 person

  14. I’m with Lukas on this one.

    While there are many anectodes, there is no real proof, no hard data. And most studies failed, nonody ever saw anything really hidden. No case was totally clear.

    Even Parnia is now calling them just TDEs, not ADEs. It seems to me that his studies, not giving the expected results, are giving more fuel for skeptics.


    • @Raf

      It doesn’t matter to me who you choose to agree with, feel free, my friend. But are you also saying you don’t care about establishing the facts of a particular case ?

      And once again you keep on repeating the same mantra that most studies failed. I’ve told you repeatedly that only one single patient has ever had an out of body experience (in a prospective study) where he had the chance to see a target.

      One patient out of seven prospective studies. Only pseudo sceptics would class that as a failure.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Raf

      Thanks for the support.


    • Oleg on said:

      Nahhh, it is ridiculous. You won’t have any proof ever, and what exactly you need proof for? This thing cannot be scientifically verified until you explain consciousness. Targets are only little sealing piece, their significance is overvalued by many. You may not pay attention, you may not remember, it may be not exactly angle that gives you vision of it and so on, but by far: ok no one saw targets then what? How does it explain other elements even more essential? Or ok, 3 people saw target then what? I don’t see Sam Parnia trying to prove anything with visual targets. He is quite certain in multiple interviews and I agree – phenomena is existing, this is not even a question anymore. Together with all those details, OBE, life review, positive feelings, you name it – it exists. The real questions are what actually is our consciousness, how it is being produced, why it is produced, brain/consciousness relation, are you your brain or not only, does it anything to do with quantum coherence (as per penrose) and so on. I see he is trying to move the edge of our understanding of conciseness little further. That is all. NDE gives unique perspective on this as your material part is shut down at heart stop. It is switched off, period. OBE or not OBE, nothing can be there by modern science contest, deal with it – lol!


  15. Tim

    Patient 10 is rubbish? Really I am wrong? Where? The patient 10 case has more flaws then this:

    1. Patient 10 arm was miraculously healed but he needed a ventilator and could not speak but was healed by his NDE and only his arm? This is logical and makes sense:

    He had suffered from a claw hand and hemiplegic gait since birth. After the experience he was able to open his hand and his gait showed a marked improvement.

    2. The data was collected after he was conscious but when it is not given. I sincerely doubt that after a NDE – or even a ADE Penny Sartori would rush into the medical room and ask him questions that is unethical at least and that could get you fired on the spot.

    3. The whole report was given after a first interview and two follow-up interviews. So I doubt that Penny Sartori came to him every day and made this in 3 days total. It would take in such a serious case at least a week or two to complete this and the patient needed to recover to allow people in his presence.

    Here is the whole text from Penny Sartori and Peter Fenwick:

    She stood outside the bedside screens, nervously and intermittently
    poking her head around to check on the patient. Once he was stable, it
    was noticed that he had drooled from his mouth, and the nurse cleaned
    it, first using a long suction catheter and then a pink oral sponge
    soaked with water. After approximately 30 minutes, the patient began
    to flicker his eyelids and move his limbs, although he was still unable
    to respond to verbal command. He regained full consciousness
    approximately three hours after the event.
    Once fully conscious, the medical team rounding on the ward
    approached his bedside and he excitedly tried to communicate
    something to the doctors. He was unable to speak, as he was still
    connected to the ventilator. The physiotherapist provided him with
    a letter board, on which he spelled out: ‘‘I died and I watched it all from
    above.’’ This was witnessed by the doctors and nurses who were
    present on the ward rounds.
    The senior author then explained her research in detail to the
    patient and invited him to participate, and he gave written consent.
    Once he was no longer dependent on the ventilator and had regained
    his voice, the senior author interviewed him in depth. This is what the
    patient reported, taken from excerpts of the first interview and two
    follow-up interviews.

    4. No one verified the hidden targets and that is from Penny Sartori herself:

    These events have been verified by the nurse and physiotherapist who were present, and they were also documented in the patient’s medical notes by the consultant who reviewed him at the time of his experience. However, that patient did not recall viewing the hidden symbol.

    All that text is taken from: A Prospectively Studied Near-Death
    Experience with Corroborated Out-of-Body Perceptions and
    Unexplained Healing

    Penny Sartori, R.G.N., Ph.D.
    Morriston Hospital, Swansea, South Wales
    Paul Badham, Ph.D.
    Alister Hardy Religious Experience Research Centre,
    University of Wales, Lampeter
    Peter Fenwick, M.B.B.Chir., D.P.M.
    Department of Mental Health, Southampton
    Institute of Psychiatry, Kings College, London

    You are welcome to believe what you want Tim as am I and I have another perspective on it.

    However I read about these cases and I had a 2 NDEs myself as a child before NDEs were even a thing – I read Raymond Moodys book in 1998 and had these experiences before 1998. This is why I want to know the truth and I do not want blindly believe something which might not be true because some people want it to believe it.


    • Tim

      Also what 3 years rubbish. Pam Reynolds case was first reported by Sabom and he interviewed her in November 1994. Even according to the PSI-Encyclopedia which is on your side Tim:

      Sabom first interviewed Reynolds in November of 1994.

      The case happened in 1991 again according to PSI-Encyclopedia:

      In 1991 aged 35, Reynolds experienced symptoms of dizziness, loss of speech and difficulty moving her body. A CT scan revealed a giant aneurysm at the base of her brain.


      I am here interested in the facts not what Spetzler or you claim after it when this became a sensation and is taken as a holy grail of NDEs. It is also odd that this case did not receive any media coverage or was totally unknown for 3 years.


      • @Raf The Pam Reynolds veridical information was reported immediately beginning and following when she woke up. These are the published facts.

        As for a controlled case, that one is as good a case as one could ever obtain, outside of a controlled prospective study, that is.

        I would appreciate it if you would kindly stop spreading misinformation. You are bordering on trolling, like Lucas.

        Liked by 1 person

  16. We have to admit that most info came after the facts, and the we have no NDE happened in studies and im controlled condition. The rest is anectodes, they aren’t proof.


  17. Lukas on said:

    Michael Prescott a known pro-paranormal person also said that Pam Reynolds case is not bulletproof and that the time matters when it was published. Therefore its not a perfect NDE case even not only from the perspective of Michael Prescott but also the authors of Irreducible Mind like Bruce Greyson a known NDE expert:

    The authors of Irreducible Mind get it right:

    The [Pam Reynolds] case is not perfect. The details were not published for several years after the experience occurred. More importantly, the verifiable events that she reported observing in the operating room occurred when she was anesthetized and sensorially isolated but before and after the time in which she was clinically “dead.” Further, it is impossible to tell exactly when during the procedure she had the experience of going into a tunnel, seeing a bright light, and conversing with her deceased relatives… We cannot … say with certainty that any part of her NDE actually occurred during the period when she was clinically “dead.” Even so, the extremity of her condition and her heavily anesthetized state throughout the entire procedure casts serious doubt on any view of mind or consciousness as unilaterally and totally dependent on intact physiological functioning. [pp. 393,394]


    Nothing more to add to this. The timing like I said is important and that it was not published for such a long time weakens the case a lot.


  18. Yep, there is no concrete proof, as far as I know, that Pam had no informations of her surgery or that she didn’t gather them afterwards, subconssciously. She might not remember that, but it is a possibility. Also we have proof that she reported it just a few days from the surgery.

    Another thing that makes me skeptic is that Parnia found brainwaves during CPR, so probably brain still does something during that time, maybe we just don’t register that.


    • Chad on said:

      He’s also said many times those are not true CAs, i remember reading something before where he said he is aware of those very rare conscious during CPR patients, their heart is beating irregularly not stopped.

      Liked by 1 person

  19. Speaking of trolls I might just make a Quora question out of curiosity asking why the freak people like Ian Sawyer are so dang arrogant and people back his arrogance? I just want to see how him and his supporters react. Because yes it’s true.


  20. Lukas on said:


    This is typical. First you say that I am a troll and now this you admit it took 3 years that the case was published? These are your words Tim:

    It did indeed take three years before the case was eventually published but the facts about the case, all the veridical information was already noted by Spetzler and his colleagues.

    And after that you say that I do not know what I am talking about:

    To get to the point, Ben, would you kindly address this information to the posters who have no idea what they are talking about and persist in making incorrect claims about the case on you forum,which have no basis in fact. Thank you.

    This is laughable at best because you did not wanted to admit it took 3 years that it was published. You also admit that they only made a note. The whole story with all the details was published years later which is a FACT like it is claimed by NDE researchers who also admit that the case is not perfect.

    Nothing more to say here. Believe what you want Tim. I personally do not care if you want to go even against Bruce Greyson and the facts.


    • @Lukas

      I’ve never denied that it took three years to publish the case. Spetzler and his colleagues weren’t going to publish it, for heaven’s sake, can’t you understand that !

      They are medical practitioners/neurosurgeons, not NDE researchers ! More to the point, it doesn’t matter ‘one iota’ when the case was published (made available to the public by someone).

      What matters is that Pam Reynolds gave all the veridical information to the surgeons as soon as she woke up, and just after. Information that she could not possibly have known about and when the physiological state she was in, should have absolutely prevented it. (she had no brainwaves-Dr Spetzler confirmed that)

      Dr’s Spetzler (and Greene) the surgeons who actually conducted the operation have told us many times that they have no explanation for the case. That is why the surgeons at Barrow Institute were all astounded (which is well attested) by what she told them, soon after the operation.

      There never was any anaesthesia awareness. That was just (in my opinion) a cynical attempt at debunking by militant atheist, Gerry Woerlee, who was not there, had nothing to do with the case and never even contacted the surgeons himself.

      The surgeons told us unequivocally that there was no anaesthesia awareness! Her brainwaves were monitored throughout the whole procedure. If there had been anaesthesia awareness then the surgeons themselves wouldn’t have been so perplexed by the case and Sabom wouldn’t have taken the trouble to make it available to the public. Doesn’t that make perfect sense ?

      Who should we believe ? The surgeons who were actually there conducting the operation, or someone on the web with a pre-existing agenda ? Why is this so difficult for you to comprehend, Lukas ?

      The case is and always was solid, but because of misinformation deliberately circulated by materialists (who were threatened by the implications of it) many neutral interested parties (like you obviously) have been persuaded to the contrary.

      I don’t have an agenda like Woerlee and Augustine and all the other well known vocal sceptics, that just so happen to be materialist atheists. I’mjust interested in the facts about the case.

      It doesn’t prove ‘life after death’ but it is certainly very persuasive evidence that the mind can continue to function when the physiological state of the brain prohibits it.

      There’s nothing else to say except I sincerely hope you’ll accept these facts for what they are.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Lukas on said:


    I understand that Tim but you called those 3 years a fallacy and that I repeat the same misinformation which is not the case when I only said that the case was officially recorded 3 years after it happened a fact that weakens it. I said nothing more about it. Here is my quote:

    Pam Reynolds case happened in 1991 but it was recorded in 1994 – look in the books for this. It was 3 years when there was a official recording of her case. I am here for the official facts not what someone claims that it happened like someone claims.

    I never claimed this. I said only what Bruce Greyson said that the case has weaknesses and is far from perfect.

    I did not want to get into the Pam Reynolds case but if you wish. I will tell you why I do not believe it besides those 3 years.

    Here is also the second half of the coin. As for Sabom he is not free of bias himself because he is a born-again Christian:

    Dr. Sabom’s latest book, Light and Death, shares with the world his findings from the Atlanta Study. Sabom, also a born-again Christian, scrutinizes NDEs in light of what the Bible has to say about death and dying, the realities of light and darkness, and the gospel of Jesus Christ.


    As for the surgeons on my personal behalf I would not trust any party here. I am not saying they are lying or that there is a conspiracy or anything but after 3 years it is hard to tell what is truth and what is fact because we got the whole story only after 3 years I personally doubt that the surgeon recorded Pams testimony from word to word and all of her verdical information on the spot. Yes she could have told that she was out of her body this is what maybe amazed the fine doctor and that she saw the operation and left a note but it was not a whole detailed case like Sabom did after 3 YEARS.

    We do not know how much talking was also going on there. We got only after 3 years a whole story which sounds incredible where everyone claims it happened like this. Similar to the case of Dr. Eben Alexander who admitted in his book that he meditated on and looked for information about his disease after his NDE and I believe Pam Reynolds did the same who would not want to know more after a NDE? Here is the quote from Proof of Heaven:

    I also went through the medical records of my time in coma—a time that was meticulously recorded, practically from the very start. Reviewing my scans just as I would have for a patient of my own, it became clear to me at last just how fantastically sick I had been.

    Proof of Heaven: Pages: 213-214

    Also it is odd that not Dr. Spetzler but Reynolds brought her NDE to attention. If something like this would have happened I would publish it. Raymond Moodys cult book was already out in 1974 so why not tell the world about it but wait for 3 years?

    Also Dr. Rudy had not problem to publish the NDE stories he lived through so do not tell me that Dr. Spetzler would have had a problem releasing this to the world. He was a respected scientist and surgeon he would not face any danger of his carrier.

    Last but not least Pam Reynolds also was not completely in the dark thanks to the informed consent prior to surgery and by this unique kind of surgery it is needed to be informed what is going to happen to you. I would not be even astonished if she knew the whole procedure. The case was not solid, how could it be we have only the speaking record and some notes. We do not have a controlled area and after 3 years it is hard to know what really happened therefore it is hard to find a objective truth like even the authors of Irreducible Mind admit.

    I personally do not have a agenda but I know that going through such a dangerous and unique at the time, operation would not be without informed consent and you would learn a lot of stuff. You are not send like a sheep to the slaughter.

    Last but not least if Pam Reynolds case would be so magnificent and solid we would not need AWARE in the first place and these discussion would not take place and more of these cases would appear. Operations in Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest are not so special now. Only in the years 1999-2002 there were 59 consecutive patients (48 men, 11 women) undergoing elective or emergency aortic surgery requiring DHCA from January 1999 to April 2002 in 2 tertiary care hospitals according to the study:

    Deep hypothermic circulatory arrest in adults undergoing aortic surgery: local experience. Chong SY1, Chow MY, Kang DS, Sin YK, Sim EK, Ti LK.

    So why do not we have more of these cases like Pam Reynolds? We should be booming with these cases now.

    However these are my personal reasons why I do not believe in this case and that it got more hyped and is more like a legend then objective study.


    • Lukas said >”….. Yes she could have told that she was out of her body this is what maybe amazed the fine doctor and that she saw the operation and left a note but it was not a whole detailed case like Sabom did after 3 YEARS. ”

      Lukas, all you are doing is surmising. And what you are surmising doesn’t have any basis in fact. What amazed the “fine doctor” (as you have referred to him– and he is of course) is that she was aware of a conversation that took place in the operating room, when her brain was dead (when she had no brain activity).

      She was also able to describe the appearance and sound of the instrument that was used to open her skull, the Midas Rex bone saw. This was part of what she reported immediately when she woke up, and in the period following, when Dr Spetzler went in to speak to her and listen to what she had to say.

      The surgeons at Barrow were aware of all these details within a short time of Reynolds awakening. Nothing to do with making up stories three years later. They had all the facts right there and then.

      As regards the notion that she was somehow given a guided tour of the operating room and a view of the instruments they were going to use, Pam Reynolds went to see Dr Spetzler on a Wednesday (for the very first time) and had surgery the following morning, beginning at 7.30 am (Thursday). She was in such a precarious situation there was literally no time to waste.

      Lastly, appealing to Dr Sabom’s Christianity as a valid reason to discredit his work as being biased or deliberately inaccurate, is just silly. That’s not being a sceptic, that’s just throwing any old nonsense at it, Lukas.

      In fact, when Sabom (reluctantly) began his investigation into near death experiences, he was a sceptic himself. He (apparently) thought it was ridiculous and all a big hoax.

      I don’t know what propelled him to become more religious, but I would hazard a guess that it might have been after listening to the many patient’s he interviewed, who knows.

      Once again, just the facts. And of course you’ll refuse to accept them.

      Liked by 1 person

  22. Lukas on said:

    Here is also the summary of Janice Miner Holden a member of IANDS about the Pam Reynolds case:

    In 2011, a year after Reynolds died (of heart failure), the Journal of Near-Death Studies devoted an entire issue to a debate about her case, in which a skeptic and two believers argued over such minutiae as the duration of the noise played by the speakers in her ears, the way bone conducts sound, and esoteric theories of how exactly a nonphysical mind might be able to perceive physical stimuli. Summing it up, Janice Miner Holden, the journal’s editor, concluded that cases like Reynolds’s “provide imperfect data that probably can never result in definitive evidence.”


    So this case is far from clear in my opinion.


  23. David on said:

    Anyway Tim and Chad and Orson. Looks like Parnias study is done. Due to the massive amount of death in New York EMTs will be allowed to try to revive CA,patients but at failure transport is to a Home or other disposal.

    Parnias work did as much for validating the ADE as to show resuscitation outcomes are so poor that it’s all DNR during pandemic.

    Also this is a super weird virus with vivid hallucinations or visions. Chris Cuomo said he saw his father also the former governor.

    With this sort of thing Parnias work is over. I am going to stick With the fact. Heading is inn the brain and the brain wasn’t working .


    • Chad on said:

      I hope Parnia doesn’t get infected, he doesn’t look too old right? His age shouldn’t be in danger.

      I forgot to mention that I disagree with Ben & Eduardo. If i was in his position, releasing results even if i had 10 hits would be the last thing on my mind, given just how busy everything is (NY is the epicenter he’ll be working 20 hours a day). Furthermore, people’s mindset right now is not of a parent grieving for a dead child, people are worried and just want things to return to normal, i don’t think it’s appropriate to tell public about potential afterlife. If an asteroid is about to earth and everyone knows they’ll die, and are living the remaining days carefree, it would be a suitable time to announce any results.

      Liked by 1 person

    • I think you are right for now, but once this is over, he can get back to it.


      • Michael Prescott (mentioned here recently) made this very appropriate post on his blog recently.

        “To all the skeptics, materialists, cynics, and assorted assholes who say that a focus on life after death is morbid, neurotic, and unproductive, I would say this:

        Some of us have made preparations for our inevitable demise and are at peace with it. Others are in constant denial. Which of us is better prepared to deal with the current panic? Which of us can keep it in perspective? Which of us is already comfortable with the fact of our mortality (yes, IT IS A FACT), and which of us is paralyzed by fear?”

        I agree with Prescott, one hundred per cent ! I would have gone further and included sceptics, materialists and cynics in the asshole bracket, mainly because of their appalling behaviour in the past forty years, collectively trying to consign near death experience to the dustbin.

        They know who they are and I’m not actually referring to anyone on here.

        Liked by 1 person

      • David on said:

        Hope so


  24. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    A question for Lucas. Lucas, why is it important to you that a long time has elapsed between the moment the NDE was produced and the publication of it? Is it because you think that the NDE would be embellished, or the facts would be distorted? But do not you think that happens more than for the greater course of time, for the dishonesty of the person who tells it or makes it known? (I hope I explained myself. I don’t speak English. I’m using Google translator.)


    • Lukas on said:

      Eduardo Jorge Fulco:

      The problem is that a testimony gets disorted after a time and the people do not remember details of it. Its normal. Human memory is not a computer and we are not recorders even Janice Miner Holden admits it:

      Retrospective veridical NDE cases like Reynolds’ provide imperfect data that probably can never result in definitive evidence either for or against the hypothesis that accurate perception can occur through non-physical means.

      VOL. 30 NO. 1, FALL 2011
      Editor’s Foreword • Janice Miner Holden, Ed.D.

      A similair statement is made by Dr. Bruce Greyson. I hope that answers your question.


      • @Lukas

        Yet another repeat of that misleading quote from Gideon Litchfield’s piece on near death experience.

        Janice Minor Holden wasn’t aware of the full details of the case when she was quoted by Litchfield. (I know that)

        Litchfield didn’t do his homework properly. He should have contacted the surgeons himself . He quite likely obtained this information by surfing the web (like you obviously do, Lukas) and assuming that what “googles up” is correct. Not so.

        He’s actually inadvertently quoting Woerlee, whether he knows it or not.

        Litchfield :

        “But none of Reynolds’s reported veridical perceptions happened while her EEG recorded a flat line. They all took place before or after, when she was under anesthetic but very much alive. “Anesthesia awareness” is generally estimated to affect roughly one in 1,000 patients. (See “Awakening,” by Joshua Lang, in the January/February 2013 Atlantic.) Therefore, the skeptical argument goes, Reynolds could have heard snatches of conversation; she might have deduced some things about the bone saw from the noise it made or the vibration of it against her skull; and she might have reconstructed some false memories out of details she’d noticed before or after the operation. ”

        “But none of Reynolds’s reported veridical perceptions happened while her EEG recorded a flat line. They all took place before or after”


        FACT : Reynolds heard the conversation and saw the bone saw when her EEG was effectively flat (no brainwaves). We have the clear statements on this from both Spetzler and Greene. They were there believe it or not, in 1991. Woerlee wasn’t there, Augustine was in short pants and Litchfield wasn’t even born.

        FACT: secondly, Janice Holden was not aware of this. She IS aware now and was partly responsible for the establishing and publication of the FACTS about this case in 2016 with The Self Does not Die.

        Will you kindly now stop trolling about this case ?

        Liked by 1 person

  25. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    Anyway, always focus on the same cases as if they were the only ones that exist… I know, via the Internet, cases that have happened to people with ECMs and with evidence that consciousness is independent of the brain… and they are people who seem to be very reliable…


  26. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    I wonder if a case in a prospective study that includes an OBE but does not score 7, which is the minimum required to be considered an ECM according to the Greyson scale, cannot explain why there are so few cases of ECM with OBEs compared to retrospective studies?


  27. Lukas on said:


    Stop being emotional you look like a fool. That is why I am actually ignoring you. Also Janice Hodlen quote was from the journal of Near-Death Studies:

    Click to access 30-1_C_Foreword.pdf

    Look it up tim.


  28. Lukas on said:


    The problem is that these cases are anecdotes collected over a period of time along with different problems. If it was so easy then dualism would be proven already and none of these discussions would take place.

    I am not telling people what to believe I sincerelly do not care. Believe what you want. I am just saying why I do no personally believe in these testimonies and why the hits are so important.


  29. Lukas on said:


    Janice Holden was aware of the case she wrote the editorial during the whole debate skeptic vs proponent in an entire issue to a debate about her case, So she was aware of both pro and against arguments.


    • @Lukas

      Lukas said >”Stop being emotional you look like a fool. That is why I am actually ignoring you”

      Clearly you are not ignoring me. And you think I look like a fool ? Feel free to think what you like about me, Lukas. What I now know for a fact (sadly) is that you are one of the biggest idiots I have ever had the misfortune to come across !

      The information published in The Self Does not Die, supersedes that article in the JNDS that you’ve provided. I helped Janice Holden and her colleagues to get the facts of it straight, in 2016.

      IANDS published the book with the facts (checked to all her colleague’s satisfaction). Facts that make the JNDS article largely irrelevant.

      If this was my blog, you’d be banned without anything further to do about it, for behaving like the worst kind of ignorant troll.

      Liked by 1 person

    • Alan on said:

      Lukas … switching gear a bit here I wonder that you would also have to explain (away?) the reincarnation data from DOPS at the University of Virginia, the Windbridge data on medium studies and the extensive Scole phenomena from the late 1990’s, the latter considered to be powerful experimental obs. of non-physical intelligences operating. Massive report (SPR report) written by three of the academic witnesses which I have read in detail. I was lucky enough to chat quite a bit with two of the authors at the time. No one ever has suggested any way to reproduce these phenomena, esp. in *total*, to be clear on this.

      *Every* data point pointing to non-physical intelligence manifesting from all the above over many decades would have to be explained as something normal, i.e. just brain-based. That is a mountain to climb for a determined denier (not saying you are BTW). AFAICT, NDE studies and the above converge to point to something non-physical and some kind of afterlife.

      Liked by 1 person

  30. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    Luke, what dualism would be proven long ago you will refer to after the 60’s, since before there was practically nothing in terms of resuscitation science…


  31. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    Ben, Tim and other members regarding the possibility that there have been positive results in the Aware measured by auditory stimuli I believe that Parnia was clear in heading the abstract of the AHA data by saying : “EXTERNAL AWARENESS AND INTERNAL COGNITIVE ACTIVITY CAN OCCUR DURING CARDIAC STOP”. What do you mean by EXTERNAL AWARENESS? How do you understand this expression?


    • Hi, Eduardo

      It’s not clear precisely what Parnia is referring to but it would seem that he is quietly indicating that patients were aware of sound (conversation) during cardiac arrest when their brain would not have been working.

      That, of course, should not be possible but sceptics will say that CPR restored sufficient blood flow to keep the brain working etc.

      The way Parnia has phrased it, it would seem that MORE THAN ONE person had external awareness of sounds. But as I understand it, NO ONE should have had ANY external awareness of sounds because they all had headphones on?

      The only sound they should have heard was the audio stimuli playing in the headphones on their ears. They shouldn’t have been able to hear people talking about which drugs should be given to restore heart function etc.

      One person out of 19, DID hear the audio stimuli. That means that either consciousness was somehow restored in his brain by CPR, or he heard it paranormally, without a brain. (We won’t know until Parnia tells us)

      If consciousness was restored in his brain by CPR, it couldn’t have been restored in the other 18 patients because they DID NOT report hearing the stimuli, which is exactly what would have been predicted.

      I suppose sceptics might argue that they all could have heard it and subsequently forgotten it but then why have some patients remembered external sounds ?
      They can’t have it both ways, surely.

      I’m still not certain which way Parnia is coming at this. I hope that helps. Please remember I’m not an expert, Eduardo.

      Liked by 1 person

  32. Lukas on said:


    So now you want to insult me again? I was a troll and now I am a idiot? I should be banned because I do not agree with you? Is this how a person who wants to know the truth behaves? I think not.

    During this whole debate I posted what other people said and even from NDE researchers and you just shot it down because you are obsessed with one NDE case that even NDE researchers pointed out will not resolve the debate. If Holden was wrong she would have retracted her article but that did not happen. Irreducible Mind was also not updated and it was not changed that this case is bulletproof.

    You did not even bother to check if Pam Reynolds had a informed consent which she had because its law but you just ignored that like always because it does not fit in your perfect case.

    You yourself said its only evidence but not proof but you are fighting for that case like it was proof of a afterlife. Why are you so obsessed with it? Are you scared that you are wrong?

    I pointed out things why I DO NOT BELIEVE IN IT. I stated that others can believe in this case if they want I never forced anyone on my views like you did Tim. I never called anyone a idiot here or a troll. I was attacked here most of the time because I said the opposite and pointed out there are other possibilities and that only hits will resolve the debate so I am definitively ending here. Ben can ban me if he wants. I personally do not care anymore there is actually nothing to discuss here anyways if you are not on the believer side but are sceptical about some things in the NDE world.


    • @Lukas

      You’re contradicting yourself yet again. You stated (two posts back) that you were going to ignore me and now you’re addressing me (again).

      Let’s get this right. I called you an idiot after you called me a fool. What would you have liked me to call you…friend ?

      Lukas said >”If Holden was wrong she would have retracted her article but that did not happen. Irreducible Mind was also not updated and it was not changed that this case is bulletproof”

      That’s not how it works, unfortunately. Articles remain on the internet as they are.

      Lukas said >”You did not even bother to check if Pam Reynolds had a informed consent”

      How would you know what I checked and didn’t check ? Of course she would have had to sign “releases” so that if she died during the operation Barrow Institute would get sued. Of course that would have been the case !

      That doesn’t mean that the surgeons were under obligation to show her the bone saw, they were going use to open her skull, for heaven’s sake. Where do get these crazy ideas from ?

      Do you seriously think it’s of any benefit to a patient (about to have life threatening surgery) that they are shown the tool selection before the operation?

      (Spetzler and Greene) “Right, young Pamela, here is the instrument we’re going to saw open your head with…do have a stroke to get comfortable with it !” (What the fuck !!)

      She was already scared out of her wits; she would have been terrified ! It’s absurd that you would even consider that in the first place. Spetzler himself has told us there was no way she could have seen that bone saw, period. Do you think he doesn’t know ?

      Lukas said >”You yourself said its only evidence but not proof but you are fighting for that case like it was proof of a afterlife. Why are you so obsessed with it? Are you scared that you are wrong?

      I’m not obsessed with it. It’s simply something that I spent a lot of time and energy studying to try to get to the facts/truth about what actually occurred. The truth is important, is it not ?

      The sceptics are the ones that are obsessed with it, simply because they feel threatened by the implications. That’s why they’ve been actively spreading misinformation and downright lies all around the net since they became aware of it, just like you’re doing now.

      I’m not forcing my views on anyone. I’m simply trying to present the facts of the case accurately. And I don’t see why you should have a problem with that. Please don’t reply.

      Liked by 1 person

      • A small correction:

        Of course she would have had to sign “releases” so that if she died during the operation, Barrow Neurological Institute would >NOT < get sued.

        Liked by 1 person

  33. Lukas on said:

    P.S.: Enjoy your stay here. I hope you will all find what you want in your life. Also thanks to some people for great discussion without extreme emotions – like Chad, Ben, Raf and Max B.


  34. Eduardo Jorge Fulco on said:

    Thanks so much Tim

    Liked by 1 person

  35. And done…I actually asked the question calling that extremist out. Gosh that guy is annoying. Ian Sawyer be like “My beliefs are facts. If you say otherwise you are wrong and all evidence that shows the possibility I am wrong is nonsense.”

    Liked by 1 person

  36. If you check Parnia’s twitter, he’s posting about how busy he is. Aware 2 was obviously put on hold since all this began. Announcing possible results is really not something i’d do.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Indeed he has posted more tweets in the past few days than in the past few years! Like you said, the study will be on hold and he won’t be responding to request for insight into his study. However, it may be that he already has a publication, or letter for a journal “in press” giving more detail about the data he presented at AHA. I think in the short term that is our only hope of learning more about this.


  37. Zilch on said:

    Hello, very long time reader, first time poster here. I have participated in several discussion groups about the subject and I’ve seen these places decline every time a sceptic (like Lukas or myself) has been discouraged from posting or called names. We need open-minded sceptics more than arrogant believers. Just my 2c.


    • Zilch said > “We need open-minded sceptics more than arrogant believers.”

      Trying to present the facts (about anything), whatever it may be, has nothing to do with arrogance.

      I don’t have a problem with true (open minded) sceptics, but they seem to be few and far between. However, just because you might be sceptical of something, or sceptical of everything, it doesn’t give you the right to spread misinformation about it, simply because it doesn’t agree with your world view. Or is that unreasonable?

      Why should the views of people that weren’t in any way involved (in a particular case) be given more credence than the people who were actually there, simply because they refer to themselves as sceptics ? Could you explain that?

      I note that you use the term “believer”, as a less than subtle insult?

      Believer ! Why not just change that to credulous fool, enemy of science, religious crackpot.

      Anyone who suspects there might be an intelligence behind the universe, is a fool, naturally.

      But someone who thinks the universe emerged from nothing, for no reason, only to disappear up it’s own rear end, is not.

      BTW, I preferred your other name, Lukas to Zilch, Lukas. Nice icon, though.

      Liked by 1 person

  38. Lukas on said:

    I said I ended posting here so please do not confuse me people with someone else. I always only use one nickname pro discussion. This is my last message here and I mean it.

    PS: I am not replying to anyone only to those who would like to claim they are me.


    • Coming back as someone called “Zilch” actually makes me like you. It’s amusing/funny and we need humour in the world at the moment. 😉


  39. I know this is a bit off topic. But do any of you have dreams that are so real you could actually swear you are in another reality in that given period of time? I have those a lot.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: