AwareofAware

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

Key points from AWARE II presentation at AHA 2022

Someone very kindly provided me with a copy of the slides from Sunday’s presentation. They sent them to me because I have a Ph.D. and I work in research therefore I will respect the sender’s request that they only be presented in an academic context and I will not post any of the actual slides on here, or supply copies. That being said much of the key bits of data can be found in the abstract that Z posted the following link to:

Link to AHA 2022 AWARE II abstract

Now to the presentation.

The background looks at the physiological factors around death and resuscitation, and has a slide on the pig study. It then looks at the different types of experience that are recalled, and also the psychological impact of these experiences. The historically low percentage of visual recollections is highlighted and he uses AWARE I as a source of evidence for this. He then moves on to the study itself.

Firstly he states 3 specific hypotheses related to Near Death Experiences:

  • Consciousness and awareness – with explicit and implicit learning – and cognitive experiences occur during cardiac arrest
  • Cognitive experiences may be related to the quality of brain resuscitation.
  • Experiences during states of unconsciousness may impact longer term psychological outcomes in survivors

It is important to note that while the first hypothesis refers to consciousness during CA, none of these hypotheses explicitly relate to dualism or refer to the possibility of the consciousness surviving death, which is after all what we initially believed the AWARE studies were about, and what in fact Parnia himself has stated repeatedly in public outside of the context of a clinical scientific audience – an important point. The second and third hypotheses relate more to his medical discipline as an ER doctor.

In subsequent slides he details the design of the study, and there is a new twist to this. Due to the lack of survivors from CA, a sad but inevitable problem that has plagued all his studies, he has decided to include retrospective data from reports of consciousness during CA that did not occur within the prospective AWARE II study. This was to provide qualitative information on experiences. As a researcher myself, I find the inclusion of retrospective data in a prospective study a little troublesome. I get why he might do this, but it makes the research potentially messy. However, thankfully that does not happen when it comes to the presentation of the prospective results.

After this the other techniques are discussed – brain oxymetry, EEG, headphones and a tablet generating audio and visual “clues”.

During the study memories that were reported were measured against a 32 point NDE scale, and any visual or auditory reports were collected and cross referenced with computer files listing the clues that were generated at the various timepoints.

Results:

As the abstract states 567 patients were “recruited”, but only 53 survived to discharge and of these only 28 were interviewed.

This is where I actually want to stop writing this post. It is incredibly disappointing to have such low numbers. In truth after more than 5 years they only obtained a sample of 28 subjects to glean information from. This is less than the number for AWARE I. I am not criticizing Parnia or his team – what they are aiming to do is very hard, and the fact that so few patients survive is the main reason why in my view, and I suspect the view of most who frequent this blog, the study “failed”. Given that from previous studies we know that only 2-3% of patients who experience clinical death and are resuscitated report NDEs with visual recollections, I have always said that you would need to have many hundreds, if not thousands, of interviews to stand a chance of getting a hit. The reasons for this are not just related to low percentages having visual recollections, but also to the chances of someone actually seeing and remembering the projected images if they were lucky enough to have a visual OBE. Anyway, I have flogged that horse to death many times here so back to the results.

In terms of patient characteristics, due to the low numbers of patients who were interviewed vs not interviewed, which mainly reflects survival vs non-survival, most differences do not reach statistical significance, except sex with a higher proportion of men being interviewed than women than the proportion reflected in the total study population, and age, with those being interviewed being younger. The first point is interesting since I think that historically women were more likely to report NDEs than men. Oxymetry data shows a trend of higher levels of oxygen in patients who survived. This has been observed before.

In terms of participating sites, the greatest proportion of patients came from the UK.

Now we get to some interesting tidbits…I’d love to post the graphics, but that would be disrespecting the kind chap who provided me with the slides.

There is a flow chart showing % of patients who had a tablet , oximetry and EEG installed, with the key data being for those who survived to interview (28):

  • 22 had tablets with files recording what was displayed
  • 24 had oximetry with 11 having meaningful files
  • Only 6 had EEG installed and if I am reading the flow chart correctly, only 2 of those interviewed had interpretable EEG files.

This last point is extremely important when it comes to drawing any conclusions about the relationship between reports of awareness and brain activity. You can’t.

How many reported awareness?

  • 11 of the 28 patients had memories or perceptions.
  • 6 reported transcendent experiences of death (he seems to have dropped RED in this manuscript and gone back to TED 🙂 )
  • 2 reported CIPRIC
  • 2 had memories post CPR
  • 3 had dream or dream-like experiences

This data partially verifies his first hypothesis.

The 6/28 is where Parnia get’s his 20% having NDEs (21% to be precise). Given the small sample size this is well within the bounds of error of previously reported numbers of 10%. Now for the core bits of data…the OBEs.

  • 2 of 28 had auditory OBEs
  • 1 of 28 had a visual OBE
  • None of 28 were able to identify the correct image including the patient who had a visual recollection – big miss for us on this blog
  • 1 subject was able to identify the correct fruit from the auditory stimuli. This is the hit that was first mentioned back in 2019. It’s hard to know what to make about this without ECG and/or EEG data correlating with the time of the audio file. It could be a bona fide hit. Either way, this possibly fully verifies his first hypothesis provided the patient was proven to be in CA.

There was no statistical difference (p=0.55) in terms of oxygen levels between patients who had memories or no memories. This possibly falsifies his second hypothesis.

In terms of EEG:

•Absence of measurable cortical brain activity (47% of images)

•Normal/near-normal delta seen in 22% of recordings up to 60 minutes

•Theta activity was seen in 12% of recording up to 60 minutes

•Alpha activity was seen in 6% of recordings, up to 35 mins

However, these are not specific to patients who were interviewed, so all the talk about recollections of consciousness possibly being related to brain activity are 100% pure speculation – UNLESS the 2 EEG files he has from the interviews specifically cross reference recollections with EEG spikes from the 6 patients who had NDEs. However we aren’t told this. It is possible that this data was verbally discussed during the presentation or more likely will be presented in the final publication. It is an important piece of data, but given that there are only 2 EEG files for the 28 who survived, even if there is some correlation with one or two of the six, the numbers are way too low to draw definitive conclusions and so I am of the view that Parnia’s reference to these recollections of Awareness being related to these is at best speculative.

The last section of the presentation refers to the retrospective study and repeats much of what has been said in the consensus statement and distinguishes REDs (yes, he uses RED here rather than TED) from other CPR related experiences such as CIPRIC.

In summary, in the absence of scientifically verified OBE or EEG data correlating specifically with strong NDEs, or an OBE, we are unable to verify or falsify the hypothesis that the consciousness is not a product of the brain. This is entirely attributable to the low numbers recruited in the study. From the PowerPoint presentation that I have, no hypothesis, either his, or ours, relating to the nature or origin of conscious awareness during CA has been validated or falsified. Given how much hope I once had for this study, I am of course very disappointed, but such is life. On a research front though, the collection of so much EEG data from patients who are in CA and having CPR is truly groundbreaking, it is just a shame that without more information we are unable to draw conclusions on the meaning of this data.

I anticipate lots of questions and a lively discussion!!

Lastly I would like to thank the lab for providing the slides for me to look at and pay my respects to the Parnia lab team, all the research sites, and the patients who took part in this study. It is no one’s fault that this study does not satisfy our desire for a “hit”, it was an epic effort and the nature of the population always made this outcome more likely than not. Also, there is another study that we still have to hear about…another day. I live in hope!!

Single Post Navigation

152 thoughts on “Key points from AWARE II presentation at AHA 2022

  1. Great summary Ben, thank you!
    I would really liked to hear Tim’s or Chad’s thought about this, anyways all in all I believe everyone who follows this blog for some years now will be a as disppointed as you are, at least I am. I do believe tho that Parnia and his team are going into the the right direction when it comes to scientifically explore the mystery of consciousness. We have learned some things about ndes and awareness during resuscitation and I think that’s great. Ofc many have hoped for that one visual or auditory “hit” but as you said, with such small numbers no surprise there.

    Liked by 1 person

  2. It that visual awareness one that intrigues me. I speculating but could it be like Mr A in aware 1? Those details are I think important.

    Like

    • Z, I could not agree more. Without having causally attended the session, we will not know if Parnia elaborated on this case verbally, but it is quite possible that the visual OBE is compelling, especially if it was accompanied by EEG data confirming no activity. However, there is less than a 10% chance that this was one of the 2 patients who survived and interviewed where a file for EEG data exists. I suspect the paper will provide more detail.

      Like

  3. It the visual awareness one that intrigues me. Are we possibly talking another Mr A from awareness 1?

    Like

  4. Constiproute on said:

    “In the cross-sectional arm, 126 community CA survivors’ experiences reinforced these categories and identified another: delusions (misattribution of medical events).”
    Who are these “126 community CA survivors” ? Are they from the previous studies evoked in your post? Because we only have one OBE in AWARE II and I hope this one doesn’t fall into this category.

    BTW they finally recognize OBEs can be delusions contrary to what appears in non-peer review papers and medias. So as I said previously don’t be impressed when you hear about an incredible story it could be cherry picking.

    Like

  5. The numbers sure are disappointing – 567 CAs, 53 survivors – all for 28 interviews!

    Can’t be anyone more disappointed than the researchers. Having to insert yourself into a Code Blue situation among staff trying to save someone’s life. Getting in the way, possibly having frustration directed at you.

    Let’s just hope they can keep this going. It’ll be a long haul to get that visual cue. Hopefully a revamped study in the future if I understood Ben correctly?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Neil,
      I agree that no one will be more disappointed than the researchers. Part of me wonders if this all the data from AWARE II, or whether there is already more post March 2020, and if they are continuing to gather data. This site says the study is still ongoing https://med.nyu.edu/research/parnia-lab/consciousness . The study I am referring to is the deep hypothermic study, or COOL II as we have dubbed here (COOL 1 was conducted in Montreal). In truth that could be a slam dunk study since it is highly controlled conditions, patients consent in advance and survive, and the equipment would be there from the start of the procedure. However, i will not be creating any more posts on this particular study other than the first one I created, as I want to give the researchers space, and frankly I am sick of speculating!

      Like

  6. MMar Alejandro on said:

    Thanks for the news, Ben.
    The first low number is the intrahospital CPR survival rate 9.3%. I believe at least in Spain and rest of Europe it’s about 30%.
    I agree the key point is to know if those 2 legible EEGs are from people with NDEs or not, and if so, compare them with nonNde EEGs, although no statistical conclusions can be obtained.
    In any case, Parnia ends his abstract saying that a near-normal EEG is a brain marker os lucid consciousness and NDEs. But that is a necessary condition, not a sufficient one. As far as I know near-normal EEGs can also be obtained under general anesthesia. “Physiological” lucid consciousness needs additionally for example, a complex pattern of orchestrations between distant parts of the brain, etc.
    Lets wait until the full article, but yes the results seem a bit dissappointing.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Welcome, and great comment. I have to admit that I am not as expert on the implications of brainwaves as I perhaps should be…I used to rely on Tim for his input there. In fact I have a couple of slides which detail the EEG and will ask him to do a guest post.

      Like

  7. Charlie on said:

    Now I see why Dr. Parnia was fence sitting. Really nothing to report with any certainty one way or the other. Even if there is a correlation with the EEG files (big if considering the numbers) I have a hard time seeing how they could align the temporal spikes to the patient’s RED narrative. So a bit of a nothing burger I think but opens the door to continued questioning, which is the goal of science I suppose

    Like

    • I was thinking of giving the post a title with nothing burger in it! However, i do not want to denigrate the great work that the Parnia lab are doing. I believe their research and methods are evolving and will progressively inform us on the science of this subject as time passes.

      Like

  8. I think we should focus on the study of DAHC patients.
    https://clinicaltrials.med.nyu.edu/clinicaltrial/1308/feasibility-study-examining-conscious/
    I think it will be more controllablit and more clear awarness will be reported.

    Liked by 2 people

    • I agree. I feel this will have much better results considering how much more controlled the study can be versus working with CA

      Liked by 1 person

      • Yes, but I think we should just keep the COOL II study in our back pockets for now. When more becomes available publicly then we can discuss it, but I do not want to spend the next 10 years of my life speculating on what might be!

        Like

    • Yep, that’s the study I am referring to at the end of my post. COOL II. However, I will not be focusing on it. I am frankly sick of chasing my tail with speculation as to what the results should or might be of any of these study. Also, Dr Parnia has mentioned in the past about enthusiasts like us having patience and giving them a bit more space. I fully intend to do that with COOL II. There is plenty to unpack from AWARE II, moreover a publication is imminent and should contain a lot more detail as well as possibly more patients. After all, as far as I am aware AWARE II did no stop recruiting in March 2020 and according to the NYU website is still recruiting https://med.nyu.edu/research/parnia-lab/consciousness

      Like

  9. Eduardo on said:

    Hi Ben. Thank you very much….I have a doubt and a question for you.

    You wrote:

    22 had tablets with files that recorded what was displayed.
    24 had oximetry and 11 had meaningful files.
    Only 6 had EEG installed and, if I am reading the flow chart correctly, only 2 of the respondents had interpretable EEG files.

    Are those numbers percentage % or are they, instead, number of patients?

    Liked by 1 person

    • Good question Eduardo, they are numbers of patients. No percentage is quoted for these.

      Like

      • Eduardo on said:

        Ben, sorry, it’s not clear to me? So those numbers or amounts of patients are data on the 53? You say only 6 had EEG installed, for example…But that means 6 patients out of the 53?

        Like

      • OK, full breakdown of the EEG data:

        Of the 567 Recruited EEG: installed 156 (27.5%), files: 85 (14.6%)
        Of the 53 who survived to discharge EEG: installed 11 (20.6%), files: 3 (5.7%)
        Of the 28 who were interviewed EEG: installed 6 (21.4%), files: 2 (7.1%)

        For the whole population (most of whom sadly did not survive) there were 88 files according to a later slide (rather than 85…) the following was observed:

        – Absence of measurable cortical brain activity (47% of images)
        – Normal/near-normal delta seen in 22% of recordings up to 60 minutes
        – Theta activity was seen in 12% of recording up to 60 minutes
        – Alpha activity was seen in 6% of recordings, up to 35 mins

        If that doesn’t get Tim back here, I don’t know what will 🙂

        I already have a great title for a post that will focus on this data…just would prefer Tim to run it as I have started a new job, and think he would handle it very well.

        Like

      • Eduardo on said:

        Thanks so much, Ben.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Eduardo on said:

        To Ben and all:

        In one of the media Sam Parnia recently claimed the appearance (in the EEGs of his AWARE II) of delta, theta, alpha, and even mentioned gamma peaks (which in this report from last Sunday seems to be missing), and said it occurred with “a flat EEG background…”

        I wonder: what does the expression “flat EEG background” mean? Does it mean that these delta, theta, alpha, etc. waves were discontinuous? How is that understood? Does anyone know?

        Like

  10. The more I look at this, the more I realise how much credit we should give to the Parnia team for capturing truly groundbreaking data on EEG in patients on CPR.just because it doesn’t give us the result we want, doesn’t mean that it is any way less of an achievement.

    Like

  11. Thank you Ben, for sharing the data with us. And thanks to the person, who gave it to you, too!

    I am only guessing, but I would think the person with the life review is one of the two EEG measured cases, because the life review / other dimensions of reality is their hook in all articles. It would be strange if they wouldn’t have data to back it up.

    And after the study about the epileptic man and his EEG came out, the authors of that study concluded the measurings were hinting a life review. The Parnia Team was quick to say, that it would match their own findings.

    It would still not mean that much, as it still doesn’t say anything about OBEs.

    Liked by 1 person

  12. Peter K on said:

    „2 of 28 had auditory OBEs“

    So one recollected the auditory stimulus (fruit). Additionally, there is one auditory recollection of a person, who could hear the sounds around him (already mentioned earlier in a post).
    It would be nice to know, if the second person also had auditory stimuli at his ear and then the question is, why did he hear the surroundings and not the stimulus.

    Liked by 1 person

    • That is a very good point. If the buds were only saying apple or banana every 10 seconds or so, then it wouldn’t drown out the noise of the buds, but equally if they hear things in the room they should hear the fruit. That will be very interesting to find out about.

      Like

  13. I believe Parnia and his team are trying to sell their results as hard as possible. In research you have to keep publishing in journals and congresses, otherwise funding for the team and more research will drop. I also work in a research team as senior, and unfortunately, one of the reasons to publish and send papers to congresses, even if results are poor, is to keep things working and funded.
    I believe that until they show/present for sure that one of the patients with a RED/NDE had measured waves they should not be saying that these brain spikes are markers of anything. First, different kind of waves were observed (from alpha to theta and delta. They don’t mention gamma, I believe they didn’t see gamma and are trying to mix their results with the ones by Zemmar). The NDE could be any of those, and delta and theta are not the same as alpha. Or it may be that patients with RED and those with no memories and those with CPRIC had similar waves, I don’t know.

    I remember back in a talk from 2013 before results from aware 1 were presented that Parnia explained the man with the verifiable OBE from the study. Explained that result. But now they are not specifically explaining what kind of waves the NDErs had.

    Additionally, these results on brain waves are very similar to those published in 2018, and the 2019 poster. Only now we know they had 2 eeg from 2 survivors interviewed. Nothing else. If you are concluding these are markers of something, that should have been presented in the results. They wrote that conclusion probably cause it is appealing and nobody told them to slow down (it is an abstract for a Congress after all, not a paper). With press releases they can say what they want.

    I might add something, from the 2018 study. The EEG tracings are all packed together. They gathered the data for flat in a total %, and so on with the rest. I.e. they would not specify which patients had more time of flat EEG, delta or whatever. If the methodology is similar here, the % corresponds to the total of patients with valid EEG readings. It would be very good if in the paper they explain what kind of waves had those who were interviewed. If not, they can’t absolutely say the brain waves are markers of anything. The real conclusion would be “brain activity can be observed during CPR up to 60 mins” and nothing more.
    Someone asked about the flat background. I believe that means the waves appear discontinuously, or maybe some of the leads show silence and others show some spikes. But if waves appear in one lead, that lead has not flat background per se. Others might.

    Sorry for this long comment. I respect Parnia, and understand how research works. When publicity is needed (social media are designed for that) things might be presented ambiguously to get good response depending what public you have. I truly believe that, based on the description of the slides by Ben (thanks a lot btw!!), the comments in the interviews and the conclusions statement seem exaggerated.

    Like

    • Eduardo on said:

      Thanks so much!!

      Like

      • Eduardo on said:

        I am deeply struck by the fact that Sam Parnia submitted a paper to Bigelow last year (which sought and asked precisely for evidence on the survival of consciousness to physical death) and now appears endorsing a position that, at least at first glance, does not clearly appear as Non-Materialist…. And even more so considering that the patients studied were so between May 2017 and March 2020 as is being reported

        Like

      • I agree Eduardo, at some point he is either going to have provide definitive evidence for one position, and stop playing both sides, or begin lose the trust of those who follow his research.

        Like

    • Great comment as always Mery, thank you.

      “Only now we know they had 2 eeg from 2 survivors interviewed. Nothing else. If you are concluding these are markers of something, that should have been presented in the results.”

      While they do include this in the conclusions, and on the slide with the EEG data, they include maybe and question marks. However, I do not doubt for one second that once the sceptics get hold of this they will remove the element of uncertainty he puts in the presentation.

      In the final paper they will need to be much more definitive and say which of the 28 subjects who were interviewed had EEG files…also remember that 47% had flat EEG all the time, so even if they had files and were one of the transcendent interviews, they may have been flatlined EEG, or a bit of delta which was the most common, and yes gamma definitely not mentioned in the slides, although when you add the percentages up there is 13% missing. I suspect there is some stuff held back for the paper.

      “It would be very good if in the paper they explain what kind of waves had those who were interviewed. If not, they can’t absolutely say the brain waves are markers of anything. The real conclusion would be “brain activity can be observed during CPR up to 60 mins” and nothing more.”

      Precisely. there is definitely a bit of hyperbole present in some of the statements linking NDEs with EEG data…at the moment none has been provided.

      Like

      • “also remember that 47% had flat EEG all the time”. Ben, in the slides does it say 47% of patients or 47% of time? Cause in the same analysis performed in 2018, I also thought it would mean “ok, 8% of the time the patient had alpha waves” or “8% of patients had apha”, BUT actually, after reading the methods, they combined together all sections of interpretable EEG and classified the waves: all together make 80% OF RECORDED TIME of all patients was flat EEG, 8% OF THE TOTAL RECORDED TIME IS ALPHA, etc. But not per patient.
        If the same was done here, it means not 47% of patients, but 47% of the recorded time of all patients together. One patient could have been 10 mins, other 60, etc. (in my opinion this clarifies nothing on patients themselves). They didn’t had continued reading through out the whole CPR time cause artifacts happen a lot and the had to discard non interpretable sections.

        Like

      • 47% of images is the wording used.

        Like

      • so no hope of life after death?

        Like

      • @Dario ofc there is hope. So far nothing has been proven or falsified and we are just talking about ndes. There are many more transcendental phenomena like shared death experiences, where the other experiencer is perfectly healthy and not on the brink of death and yet has an nde. So in case that you are pessimistic or anything right now because of the new results, dont be. They arent new nor has the scientific situation changed a lot.

        Like

    • Eduardo on said:

      This was Parnia saying in an interview a few months ago:

      “As the heart stops and we die, the brain flattens out and does not function. However, using electrical monitoring of the brain, there is growing evidence that in this state (as people die), there are markers of activity (beta, delta and sometimes gamma waves) that emerge for a very short period. They are usually found when people have conscious experiences, but they are now also observed to emerge at the time of death, when the rest of the brain has a flat background.”

      Like

  14. Michael DeCarli on said:

    @mery @ben

    What do you think this means for materialistic vs non materialistic interpretation of NDE?

    I know more info is needed but based off what we have can you give a leaning that a person without a scientific background would understand? Both of you seem very well versed! Thanks!

    Like

  15. Here’s a reply from the materialist crowd (I am not one of them, I am playing devil’s advocate). Argument from reason, consciousness, and free will for me falsifies materialism for all practical purposes:

    https://theness.com/neurologicablog/index.php/aware-ii-near-death-experience-study/

    My wife is an ER hospital nurse – she can see how COVID would have ruined this study

    Like

    • Charlie on said:

      Just skimmed it but it seems the materialist crowd is similarly unimpressed with the study

      Like

    • Hey Nic, just read your post. Novella is just one of those “professional debunkers” in your link I wrote of 3 minutes later!

      I also note he didn’t reply to the comment by Pablo Dyehuty about the Titus Rivas book, “The Self Does Not Die” and the 60 verified cases. That’s Novella.

      Like

      • I know Novella well although I am more of a Michael Shermer fan (I am saying this as a believing convert to the catholic church). I just read his latest book, Heavens on Earth, where he ends up concluding as being pessimistically hopeful. Novella is more of a Jerry Coyne who will defend self refuting statements and ignore all contrary evidence just because materialism demands it

        Like

      • Painful review to read! Novella concludes NDEs are likely what happens when CPR is performed, which leaves out all the NDEs that occur in other circumstances. These people are so intellectually lazy.

        Liked by 1 person

      • Thank you Olivia…it’s like the only place that NDEs occur is in a hospital emergency room during CPR! Neither of the NDEs personally recounted to me were in ERs or during CPR. One happened before CPR was invented or at least commonly used. It is a common tactic of people losing arguments to narrow the reference of the argument to a contentious point and ignore the wider range of evidence.

        Like

    • Constiproute on said:

      I’m not a neuroscientist but it’s interesting because Steve focus on the time when the memory form, which is a point we have not discussed yet. If I understand well, he notices there is no sign of forming memory during CPR so these personal experiences might happen before flatlining or just before recovering.

      However, we know there are 1 or 2 audio hits so we are sure at least some patients reported what happened in real time during CPR. How can someone report an event if the brain is not recording it ? Is there a mention of that in Parnia’s paper ?

      Again, I’m not a scientist and English is not my native tongue but this is what I understood from his piece.

      Like

      • “How can someone report and event if the brain is not recording?” it is one of the central paradoxes of NDE reports. As has been discussed here a number of times, it points to the possibility that memory is stored externally, and our brains just access it…a bit like the internet. The fact that when people have life reviews they are able to experience events from other people’s perspective supports this idea.

        Like

      • Constiproute on said:

        Ok so now we are sure some people related precise events from de resucitation process (the audio). Can they track the formation of this memory with their technique ?

        Like

  16. Stepping back a bit 🙂 … I’ve been looking again at Parnia’s NYAS 2022 paper, “Guidelines and standards for the study of death and
    recalled experiences of death–a multidisciplinary
    consensus statement and proposed future directions”

    Click to access Parnia-et-al.-Shirazi-2022.pdf

    I read that since the time Ray Moody identified 11 themes related to NDE, since then over 50 have been identified. These are listed in Table 1 on Page 3. It stretches credibility for me that there isn’t something profound behind all this on reading through all these 50 human experiences.
    Table 2 lists quotes in relation to REDs. A lot there.
    And what about anecdotal reports where Sam has often said the patient couldn’t know through ordinary means what they saw?

    In relation to other possible dimensions of reality (they mention in a physics sense), in one of the Supplementary sections connected to this paper they say … “Whether an authentic case of classical NDE or a deep religious or mystical experience reflects an external reality cannot be known. Many people with these experiences have described a belief that their experiences are real and that they have perceived an alternate reality that they are unable to express adequately, as the qualitative nature of their experiences are changed and “transfigured” due to the limitations of their brain.” And they say more.

    BTW, I don’t think I’m just quote mining to drum up a bit of hope, ha, ha. 🙂

    So I thought to share this. My stepmother died a few months ago and on the morning after, a chandelier above myself and my wife’s heads had crystals on chords swinging rapidly (other chandeliers had no movements) and my wife said she felt she was there. No windows open, no breeze, no earthquake in our area (I checked on the USGS website). Too high to bang into. My wife is university physicist trained like me, an engineer and a “healer” in several disciplines (Reiki etc.) My stepmother I know felt close to my wife.

    Yesterday my stepbrother mailed me that my stepmother had left my wife a brooch belonging to her mother. As soon as I told my wife she said that morning on the beach by herself (*before* she knew of the brooch), she had a powerful feeling she was with my stepmother in her previous home we all knew over many years with my dad and my sisters and other family. So intense she was floored by the experience. And the night before here at home. This was the first time she told me.

    Last night I mailed my stepbrother this as I felt obliged to of course.
    He replied that the night after his mum died he had a powerful unexplainable and complex experience of her which he’ll tell me of when we meet again. 3 events – unexplained but related.
    I don’t know really, it’s all the human side we all have day to day, as in all these experiences above in the above paper. It means something.
    So I’m not that worried re the very recent paper. Professional debunkers can clear off. Whatever.

    Like

  17. Michael DeCarli on said:

    Can you imagine if the visual OBE is accompanied by one of the EEG reads. Can you imagine if this visual OBE has verifiable attributes to it (even if not the target) AND has eeg reads?

    EEG readings can’t create an accurate Visual OBE but what they can do is provide a bio marker of the mechanism the physical brain uses to mediate a non material consciousness.

    One of the hardest debate points that dualism has had to deal with is materialistic scientists asking them what sort of mechanism the physical brain could use to translate an immaterial “soul” or “consciousness” into this material world. Dualists could never answer.

    Well, could you imagine if this validated visual OBE accompanied by EEG reads became the thing that began to uncover that mechanism? Sheesh.

    Like

    • You make an excellent point Michael, and one that I had never considered. A verified OBE plus EEG would create a conundrum for everyone…materialists and dualists alike. Both “sides” would claim victory.

      Like

      • Michael DeCarli on said:

        If that’s a result that comes out of this then buckle up.

        Suddenly materialists have a lot more to explain.

        How can you possibly materialistically explain how a delta, theta, gamma, beta, alpha wave, or a coupling of any of these waves could create something objectively visually verifiable?

        However, you could perhaps begin to explain how these experiences are integrated into our material lives and world.

        You can’t discount data you don’t like. If you step back and look at all the data out there, verifiable NDE’s, Peak in Darien experiences, windbridge institute experiments, etc suddenly this becomes the only explanation that makes sense. It also seems to align with the Parnia labs odd fence sitting statements.

        The NDE may itself sit on the fence. Between material and non material.

        Like

      • Wiktor fiegler on said:

        what do you mean,Michael. Are you talking to materialist or ben?

        Like

  18. Is it possible we’re reading too much into the following statement: “detection of rhythmic brain waves are suggestive of near-death experiences”?
    I find it interesting how the above statement from Parnia Lab suggests a correlation between brain activity and NDEs, but Parnia discusses TED separately in his findings.
    Is it possible that the aforementioned NDEs relate to the reported memories, dreams, and dream-like experiences described in the data, but not the separate data of TED reported?
    As posters have previously discussed, death is a process. The brain may well be responsible for these reported NDEs (assuming these are memories, dreams, and dream-like experiences), but not necessarily TED. Experiencing NDEs such as these could be the first part of the dying process and TED might be the second part (which Parnia might know isn’t correlated with brain activity).
    I think it’s important to highlight that Parnia refers to TED and OBEs in his findings, but does not explicitly state that brain activity is correlated to either of these (just NDEs). Differentiating NDEs and TED could be key if data supports that brain activity and NDEs are correlated, but brain activity and TED are not correlated.
    Or perhaps, TED does come under the umbrella of an NDE in this study and brain activity is correlated. However, Parnia is still not stating brain activity is correlated with OBEs. A key difference.
    And maybe he does have data supporting that brain activity isn’t linked to verified TED/OBEs, but hasn’t explicitly said this as it isn’t in the hypotheses? Maybe it will be in future studies? He could be trying to drum up support from the materialist crowd right now with a statement correlating NDEs and brain activity, knowing full well it will work in his favour when presenting future data that supports TED/OBEs not being correlated with brain activity.
    I don’t come from a scientific background, nor do I understand all the scientific jargon used a lot of the time, but I just thought I’d share my thoughts. Maybe I’m just fishing, I’m not sure!

    Like

    • Lewis, that is a very astute observation. In all this we have forgotten Parnia’s attempt to reclassify the various experiences with new nomenclature, and that he had effectively discarded the term NDE when it comes to describing awareness during clinical death. He has been doing this for a decade now with ADEs TEDs and REDs, so you may be on to something in that when we read this statement which has caused significant consternation in our little community, we are still thinking of NDEs in the classical sense, but he is using the term under his new definitions, which are experiences which happen near death, rather than when clinically dead. To look at everything he says with this understanding removes some of the confusion and accusations of fence sitting, although arguably he is playing with words.

      Like

  19. Has anyone been able to get Bruce’s take on the findings? Tried to email but no response.

    I’d find it interesting especially because they worked together on the guidelines paper.

    Surely him and Parnia would have discussed his ongoing research. There is a pessimistic part of me that wonders if he knew this was coming.

    Liked by 1 person

  20. Anthony on said:

    Well, there doesn’t seem to be any significant progress with Aware II, which is a shame. It seems that it moves more towards positions more in favor of materialism, although it is still quite ambiguous
    As I said before in other comments on this blog, I believe that finally a physiological-biological-materialistic correlation will be found for all these events, but perhaps it will be in a long time
    It seems that there is brain activity after the clinical death of people. If perhaps that extends for minutes or hours, it is quite plausible to think that near-death experiences arise in those moments. The great mystery is out-of-body experiences. Even so, in a sleep paralysis many years ago I was able to see myself from above while I slept, and what I saw below was different from reality. I think it is a mystery that at some point will be solved outside of spirituality

    Like

    • I think you put the materialist viewpoint across fairly. I agree that, for the moment at least, the presentation of data showing EEG activity during CPR does help support a physiological explanation…to a point. Also, as you point out, it does not explain OBEs, nor does it support the generation of lucid conscious awareness that follows a consistent story arc. However, until there is a verified OBE, or until we are able to correlate multiple NDEs with EEG, we will stay in this stand-off.

      Like

    • It may or it may not lean toward a materialistic position as the method by which they are collecting the data relies on that method which is materialistic by design. Or perhaps the way one reads the article with regard to a bias? Or perhaps Parnia is forced to respond this way for representation? Or?

      Nevertheless, even if a physiological-biological correlation is found the problem then remains of the nature of said correlation.

      Does this correlation support a Dualistic, Panpsychist/Cosmopsychist, Neutral Monist, Idealistic, Materialistic, Quantum notions of consciousness? We would have a correlation but would it leave something out? Would it be the whole story?

      Even if we found the “physiological-biological-materialistic correlation”, this could work perfectly well for various other positions that are of a Monist nature such as Idealism, Panpsychism, etc.

      So although the “physiological-biological-materialistic correlation” would be one way of looking at it, there are various others that are just as valid. Then the hard problem arises, OBE’s/NDE’s and the question of “what is matter” resurface.

      I do not know.

      Liked by 1 person

  21. Some people here are leaning on the idea that this paper leans towards materialism, but that isn’t even clear. His use “may” in regards to whether or not NDEs correlate with CPR induced brain activity may just be that, a possibility without actual proof. Furthermore, some of the brain waves, may be gamma artifacts or other things. I believe Bruce Greyson and Parnia have discussed this in the past. We just have to wait for more info and discussion from the relevant authorties.

    Like

    • Based on a past email with Bruce Greyson I will just say he did not entirely agree with the consensus statements Parnia set in the paper. I will not copy here his response out of respect, but it seemed it was more a move from Parnia’s side. He thought it was still a bit confusing term and not very helpful. When I discussed with him Zemmar’s article back in April he was not aware of Parnia’s results from 2019 AHA posters, on EEG findings.
      However, I am sure he was aware of EEG findings in the 2018 article, since this was discussed in the consensus statements article and he read and analysed it. I don’t believe they discussed the aware 2 results.
      I have also sent him the press release info, no answer yet.

      Dr Long however seemed to agree with the consensus statements (was quite happy with the outcome, in a personal mail). And Fenwick too seemed to agree in an interview. So maybe it was only Greyson who did not entirely agree.

      Liked by 1 person

      • @Mery

        What exactly is Greyson not agreeing with in the Parnia papers?

        Long and Fenwick still seem to be well on the “survival” side of the debate? (Unless I am not up on some of my readings, which is very possible).

        Thanks!

        Like

  22. New here. Is anyone hear of the opinion that these results are in favor of both materialist AND dualist views? It just seems….like both sides are being channeled here. Like sure brain waves were detected during CPR but that’s really the only materialist element here and even then that doesn’t tell the whole story or prove/disprove anything. Like of course the brain is going to be involved to an extent; if anything all this shows it’s so much more than that. There’s something else at work somehow.

    Liked by 1 person

  23. After having gone over the study, your write up and some comments.. I believe it would be fair to conclude that nothing has changed from prior to the study’s release?

    Meaning, we are still left with the mystery of NDE’s, OBE’S, etc. None of what has been posted has tilted the scales to one side or the other from any of the perspectives.

    Therefore, concluding that the “disappointment” refers to the fact we have gone no where after having an absolutely monumental effort conducted by Dr. Parnia and team?

    Thank you for posting Ben.

    Liked by 1 person

  24. Stanley on said:

    Woah. Very underwhelming. Was really hoping Aware2 would finally give some sort of rest to the matter, either way.

    I can understand your unwillingness to follow COOL 2 very closely Ben, at least publicly on this blog. This incremental, have-they-or-have-they-not guessing game has gotten very old, and I’ve only been following this saga for about 5 years now.

    I guess we’ll just know when they know, and until then there’s not much anyone can do about it.

    Hope everyone’s well and finding happiness in the day-to-day.

    Liked by 1 person

  25. Just been listening again to this Lucid Dying: Exploring Brain and Consciousness at the End of Life video from the Parnia Lab from May this year and the moderator does a little summation of the panelists views at 26 minutes. The panelists are Dr. Parnia, Dr. Gurin (neurology), Dr. Craig (philosophy), Dr. Hoffman (cognitive science), Dr. Bossis (psychiatry)

    “So a lot was just said. I think that maybe it’s safe to say that everyone here can probably agree that consciousness and the idea of the self is not stemming purely from physical matter.”

    It’s worth listening to Sam’s comments before this and those of Dr. Bossis who says during his studies of trials of people on psilocybin [15 years experience] people say, “there is no death, while the body may die, whatever is consciousness we don’t know, continues some way. And that’s been a fascinating aspect of the research, and it kind of comes back, or comes to the very hard problem, is consciousness generated by this remarkable and beautiful brain function we all have or somehow more remarkable than that, somehow outside biology, or more complicated than we think. And these patients say they answer that kind of experience.”

    In the Press Release for the very recent paper this is said … “As the brain is shutting down, many of its natural braking systems are released. Known as disinhibition, this provides access to the depths of a person’s consciousness, including stored memories, thoughts from early childhood to death, and other aspects of reality.” (I just think that last bit is huge, aspects not from the brain surely).

    This effect of the brain shutting down producing more consciousness, not less also happens in psilocybin treatment (the term “unconstrained cognition” is used) but I was certainly surprised to hear Dr. Bossis, who researches this, say what he said. I previously thought all psilocybin researchers were coming from a materialist viewpoint.

    So, although the results of the recent paper may seem disappointing, in fact Sam and some others researching consciousness seem to be saying we’ve got a much bigger problem. Consciousness maybe not stemming from physical processes. But this isn’t proven from the paper, just hinted at?

    Thanks for the summary Orson!

    Liked by 1 person

    • Hi Alan,
      Thanks. Yes, certainly the interaction between the brain and consciousness is fascinating, and not understood at all. The results from AWRE do not really give us any new insights, at least not the results that have been shared thus far. Hopefully the paper will have some bits in it that are more informing. If he had something really big…either an NDE time matched to EEG activity, or a verified OBE with no EEG, then that would get in Nature, still the daddy of them all (despite their COVID shenanigans).

      Like

      • Hi Orson, you know, I just think we must trust more what people are telling us in these experiences. I guess a true hit will come one day (like an unexplainable Messi goal and who does it often) but we still should be of good cheer. 🙂

        Liked by 1 person

  26. In this article they give examples of what the patients of Aware II were experiencing, for example one dreamed of a singing fisherman, another person heard her grandmothers voice to return back to her body.

    https://www.medicalnewstoday.com/articles/what-do-people-experience-at-the-border-between-life-and-death#Reports-of-transcendent-experiences

    Like

    • Good find Cobra, a key bit of detail about the auditory experiment, which probably means neither of those were hits. In reality this study only muddies the waters. The rat experiments and the case from earlier this year mean it is not surprising at all that we get EEG activity. Without correlation to reports of awareness though, these readings do little to inform us. Only 26 interviews with only 6 of those reaching over 7 on the NDE scale. 1 possible OBE. No progress.

      Like

      • Eduardo on said:

        how do you understand the expression “6 EEGs installed” and only two “interpretable”. what does “interpretable EEGs” mean …why only two?

        Liked by 1 person

      • The equipment only captured data that was consistent with properly recorded EEG. Only 2 because they were doing this in an ER with all kinds of stuff going on, with capturing an EEG being the lowest priority.

        Like

    • Constiproute on said:

      “For example, one participant believed he was burning in hell; however, researchers in the study write that he was likely feeling a burning from a “tissued” potassium intravenous line.”

      They are prompt to find materialistic explanations for negative experiences but they are not in a hurry to explain the positive ones.
      According to experiencers, hellish experiences are as real as positive ones and as real or “more real” than real life…

      Liked by 1 person

      • This is something that has really troubled me since the consensus statement in which they dismissed all negative NDEs with a physiological explanation, even though they follow similar patterns to other NDEs prior to them turning negative. It is neither scientific nor ethical since if people do have negative experiences it is vital that we try to understand why.

        Like

  27. I knew that OOBEs were very rare and therefore hard to study in controller environment such as hospitals, but just ONE OOBE in all those years… eh. We need a signs on walls saying “look under the ceiling” for the people who find themselves in ghost/bardo state and THEN waiting for oobes to happen. Because without such signs, I doubt that anyone will check out ceiling because of other better things to do

    Liked by 1 person

    • Welcome Kuba. The problem is not that OBEs are rare…about 2.5% of people who experience clinical death and are revived have one, it was the number of interviews…26, and this is a result of the number of survivors who had the adapted crash cart present at the time of their CA and CPR. There is a study where subjects can be told beforehand to look out for images, but rather than speculate on that, we will wait til it produces results.

      Like

  28. Matthew D on said:

    I have silently followed this blog for years and the information and opinions from Ben and others has highly been appreciated, so firstly I’d like to say thank you.
    The low amount of patients seems absolutely absurd given the time and resources allocated to Aware II. Whilst I do appreciate the difficulty of the nature of studies conducted in or around CA, I can’t help but feel like they spent an extremely small amount of time each year to get such a minute quantity of people. The important take for me here, is that one potential auditory hit, and we need to know the ECG results. As Ben rightly points out, such a small yield of patients will scarcely obtain a hit and it’s frustrating that Parnia isn’t attributing a reason for the lack of patients.
    I cannot fathom why aware II did so much PR prep – even going as far as having an Instagram page. It doesn’t make sense to excite the masses unless an even better Aware study was coming, but to what end? Perhaps people were even more unwilling to consent? I don’t know. Anyway, as we can all agree, extremely dissapointing, however I’ll be heading back to this blog periodically for any further updates.

    Liked by 1 person

  29. ABOUT SAM PARNIA
    I’m wondering a number of things following new reports that there is NO HIT in AWARE II.
    1. If the brains were “shut down”, what did the “spikes” of activity look like? If they lasted up to over an hour…did they occur BEFORE or AFTER ROSC?
    2. It turns out that NO one remembered the music or the screens on top… I hope the screens were NOT facing the patient… The 28 tried to GUESS which image was on top, out of 10!!!! The normal outcome would have been that 1-3 would have hit randomly!
    3. Has the same happened with the audios? Did the gentleman or lady who blindly guessed the words “apple, banana and pear” choose from 10? How statistically significant is this?
    4. Of the people who have given “spikes”, have any been from the group of interviewees or NDErs?
    5. Of the auditory (yes remembered) and visual (one remembered) perceptions, have any findings been made regarding whether they are accurate?
    6. Why does Parnia flirt with the idea of ​​a physiological basis for REDs while saying that they are NOT hallucinatory? How is it that in May THIS year he openly defended together with people from philosophy, psychiatry, psychology… a transcendent perspective of consciousness?

    I trust that the whole paper will answer these and other questions, otherwise the five-year investigation would go from poor to very poor.

    Liked by 1 person

  30. I think the overall negativly is untoward.
    Firstly we must await the paper itself.
    Secondly the data collected is the data collected. Sure the data could have been higher, but it could have been lower. It like trying to find a needle in a haystack. I be far more concerned if data was fabricated but that an aside.
    Thirdly the obe is a intriguing one. I know I repeat myself but if it anything like Mr A from Aware 1 that a huge deal as it at least provides a framework of scientific replication which very important in scientific studies.

    Like

    • I agree that the OBE is intriguing. The fact the person didn’t identify a target will be used by sceptics to say that it was all in the head, but until the full details of the case have been published, it is impossible to draw definitive conclusions since the chances of seeing and remembering the image are probably not that high.

      On the negative front, I have quite a results focused personality, so get frustrated at the lack of clear results either way. Let’s hope the paper or something else will yield something for meaty.

      Like

  31. All I see Is a partial failure of AWARE 2 but mostly a strong victory for the materialist side. EEG Readings point to some Activity during CPR, CPR inducing semi conscious states, and no certified hits or OBE that bints at them being more than strong hallucinations. I’m pretty confident that if the field keeps being researched validly, biological explanations Will come out.

    Liked by 1 person

    • I disagree Emp…the numbers are too low to be able to draw any conclusions that would make this a “strong victory for the materialist side”.

      Like

    • It’s like saying I’m skeptical about meteors because none hit me in head. OOBEs are rare and therefore hard to study. Brain activity during NDE don’t change anything
      What if there would be a brain activity even during veridical OOBE? It would only means that brain waves are like mirror reflection of something going on on the other side…

      Liked by 1 person

    • The only way this could be seen as a victory for the materialist crowd is if you want to claim that absence of evidence is evidence of absence. If we manage to get a neural correlate or something similar of the NDE then it would be a strong materialist victory, but that would be counter to all the research done thus far and it’s been addressed multiple times on this blog in the past (the mad professor in Michigan that electrocuted a bunch of rats, OBE from Aware 1, Pam Reynolds, etc.). Even if this is so, that does not mean that materialism is true and there is no afterlife, it just means that NDEs don’t prove anything.

      A definitive picture hit in AWARE 2 would have created a clean Popperian style falsification of mind materialism. But we still have the narrative type OBE NDEs which are paradoxical and counter to the materialist models of mind which as Parnia says, should be studied further without prejudice.

      Liked by 1 person

      • True. Also, the brain activity during whatever on-edge-state doesn’t mean that materialism is right. It can be that brain waves are just mirror reflection of something going on beyond this material world

        Liked by 2 people

  32. In the Pam Reynolds case, there weren’t any of these brain waves or spikes and yet she had a fully profound NDE with verified visual accuracy of her operation. So it seems to me that all this brain activity may occur with some NDEs but not others. Therefore, the statistics may not be relevant for the nature of the phenomenon.

    Liked by 2 people

  33. Alejandro Agudo on said:

    “The researchers found these experiences of death to be different from hallucinations, delusions, illusions, dreams, or CPR-induced consciousness.”

    ( https://nyulangone.org/news/lucid-dying-patients-recall-death-experiences-during-cpr )

    … so then CPR-induced brain activity, spikes and near-normal EEGs in some frequencies are not the origin of the 6 NDEs, right?

    Liked by 1 person

    • CIPRIC creates an entirely different type of recollection. Parnia knows this, however, as a scientist, without scientific evidence to the contrary, he cannot discount the possibility that NDEs are a result of these signals that are observed in numerous patients for as long as 60 minutes. What he believes, and what we believe to be the reality is entirely different, but until we have that scientifically validated OBE, then we must allow all possibilities.

      Like

      • Eduardo on said:

        Pero bastaría encontrar una ECM con un EEG plano en todo su trayecto para descubrir que existe un fenómeno diferente. Entiendo eso. Alejandro Agudo y Ben.

        Like

  34. Constiproute on said:

    The thing is : How do they know this activity is directly induced by CPR ? You obviously can’t let someone die and compare his brain activity with someone being revided. Are they sure these brain waves are the consequence of CPR and not a physiological reaction ?
    Are there examples of NDEs of people spontaneously recovering without receving help ?

    Liked by 2 people

    • ROSC without CPR does occur, but it is rare. However, given the reports of NDEs of people who die outside of hospitals, and recover, we do have evidence, so therefore NDEs do occur in the absence of CPR.

      Like

    • Before CPR was a thing, most NDEs did not come from them. If you’re willing to scour through the archives of Michael Prescott’s blog you’ll find a lot of old accounts that have the same content that modern accounts do. The relationship with cardiac arrest and CPR with NDEs in my opinion has to do with the fact that you get a very rapid loss of consciousness paired with a mechanism that allows to revive a lot of these patients.

      Like

    • Interesting update.

      Liked by 1 person

  35. Well this is just disappointing. Nothing groundbreaking.

    Like

  36. Overall though, do you think Dr. Parnia is now a materialist or do you think it’s more complicated than that?

    Like

    • I have no idea what he is except a very patient researcher and a man who spends his days looking saving the lives of those at deaths door.

      Like

      • I mean, what do you in particular think? I think the evidence could go either way, with the conclusion veering just a hair away from materialism.

        Like

    • Charlie on said:

      To me it seems he is developing his own hybrid philosophy, especially in light of the article Ben linked below. He has been harping on his idea that “death is a process” rather than a clear line in the sand. He is finding true experiences that happen “in death” and that you “recall” (RED anyone?). These are part of the conscious experience of this process. That these experiences happen defy material explanation. But does that mean materialism will just shift the goalposts to say this process is physical? It’s not clear if Parnia thinks the RED experience means you are packing up and leaving to the great beyond or if it stops at a certain irreversible point. Regardless, I think he is trying to fit everything into his new definition of things.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Charlie, NDE is propably a mix, both physiological and spiritual. What’s going on “there” is affected by our beliefs or state of mind

        Like

  37. I think this article has some more promising quotes from parnia. Hold your nose, it’s the UK Daily Mail!

    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/health/article-11434013/Life-really-flash-eyes-youre-dying.html

    “ The British doctor, who has spent two decades investigating what happens when the heart stops, said those brought back from the edge of death have, for decades, reported heightened consciousness.

    But he said the findings show that this is even the case when patients were not conscious and ‘in death’.”

    That is very telling…”in death”. He must be able to support that with EEG and ECG data.

    He also said:

    “ And that these are not hallucinations, they are not illusions, they are not delusions, they are real experiences that emerge when you die.’ ”

    Like

    • Probably the EUs fault Ben. (Aplogies just needed to make an irrelevant comment) 🙂

      Liked by 1 person

    • That gives me hope again ;o) Thank you!
      Just a little strange, that only the daily mail mentions this key sentense “But he said the findings show that this is even the case when patients were not conscious and ‘in death’.” This is totally important and changes everything once again.

      Liked by 1 person

      • I suspect he did a quick telephone interview with the reporter, and said this. But yes, why didn’t he state this before…would have given us here a bit more hope than some of the other interviews. It is also possible that he said that in the other interviews and were not included…but seems unlikely. It is clear to me that he must have evidence that he will be able to include in his manuscript that supports this statement otherwise he wouldn’t be able to make it.

        Like

      • Not trying to be negative but you can see a lot of recent articles on common news sites. Like the sun.

        I think they just take quotes but then anything not quoted is there assumptions. I really don’t think they have spoken with him at all.

        Only new one was from the New York Post and they mention after the quotes that they spoke with Parnia.

        https://nypost.com/2022/11/16/your-life-really-does-flash-before-your-eyes-when-you-die-study/amp/

        Like

      • I think you are right. Journalism is really rubbish now…I am no better though! Should have been more diligent in checking the source.

        Like

    • I’m really sorry but this was silly and easy to check. It’s a article in the daily mail just using quotes.

      It’s not a new interview with any new insight. They are just taking things from the MedicalNewsToday article.

      “For decades now, millions of people who’ve gone through this have reported having lucid heightened consciousness, even though from the perspective of their doctors they were not conscious and they were in death,” Dr. Parnia told MNT.

      Like

  38. Kind of off topic but the Bigelow Institute for Consciousness Studies who Sam and colleague wrote their essay for (and got an Honourable Mention) “What is the Best Available Evidence for the Survival of Human Consciousness After Permanent Bodily Death?” have now another program called “The Challenge” – contact with afterlife beings.
    https://www.bigelowinstitute.org/

    Re Sam’s essay his Conclusions and Future Directions seem pretty clear what they mean.

    Liked by 1 person

    • This new project by Bigelow (to do with “wisdom acquistion”) reminds of Job in the Bible … always like this passage.

      But where can wisdom be found?
      Where does understanding dwell?
      No mortal comprehends its worth;
      It cannot be found in the land of the living.

      Time for a coffee 😉

      Liked by 1 person

    • I don’t know about this. I mean, one reports this new effort by Bigelow because Sam was involved in an essay connected with Bigelow. But after watching their video what possible “wisdom” could be given to help mankind that Bigelow is looking for from participants who take part and make contact with “beings” or something discarnate?
      The main existential event/crisis (some nasty event is hinted at on their website but not specified) of our time is climate change and we can solve this (maybe only possibly now given fast rising CO2 levels) through drastic CO2 reduction only by *ourselves*, not by any advice from these other sources.

      Like

  39. The instagram profile of the Parnia laboratory has published a Nautilus post in the stories. He says that NDEs are nothing but the figment of our mind (hallucinations practically). Why would they publish such a thing if they have reiterated that it is a real event and not an illusion?!

    Liked by 1 person

  40. This the bit of the article linked with sam parnia

    It from sept 2022

    …psychiatrists, as well as a neurologist from New York Medical College and a neurophysiologist specializing in sleep and epilepsy from Kings College in London, got together in New York to discuss the future of NDE studies. Sam Parnia, the resuscitation researcher from New York University Grossman School of Medicine, was among them. The result of that meeting was the 2022 paper in the Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences. Among other things, the authors proposed a new name for the NDE: “recalled experiences of death,” or REDs, to limit the field to the study of just those experiences that occur when someone is in critical condition, or a near-death state, such as cardiac arrest, when the brain no longer receives blood and oxygen.

    Parnia told me the new name was meant to reflect the authors’ belief that near-death experiences actually happen after someone is dead. “What we’re saying is science is showing you that death is not the end that we thought,” Parnia said. “It’s almost like a new, uncharted, unexplored territory.”

    The group also identified 51 core features, or themes, of REDs. These include “separating from the body,” “realization of having died,” “a higher purpose: I wish I had known,” and “loss of fear of death.” These experiences, the paper states, are characterized by “a paradoxical lucidity and a heightened sense of consciousness, awareness, and well-structured thought processes, typically without external or visible signs of consciousness.” In a supplement to the paper, the authors allow the possibility that consciousness “is a separate entity that, while undiscovered by science today, is not produced by conventional brain cell activities.”

    Like

  41. Please delete Ben if over the copyright thing and apologies if is

    Here a link to the article

    https://nautil.us/the-afterlife-is-in-our-heads-240441/

    Like

  42. Thank you! So the title is clickbait?

    Like

  43. Ok I found the full text. He goes on to say that the other author thinks there is a “materialistic” explanation for NDEs. Now… if Parnia’s profile has published this news, is it to say “In our opinion the soul exists but for others it doesn’t, here are the positions”? Because otherwise they are giving themselves bad publicity. “We say this, but other scientists say we are ignorant” be like

    Like

    • Well, in any case the arguments made in the article would be compelling only for someone who hasn’t read a lot on the issue. It’s an interesting way to sneak in the position of Parnia et al which is very clearly not materialistic.

      Like

      • It’s really bizarre. It’s a two month old article that’s shared now.

        It also says in the article that Sam and by extension the team that posted, focus too much on interpretation and not evidence.

        I’m not sure what the message is. It’s interesting it includes Bruce Greyson agreeing they focus too much on testimony and not on evidence.

        Strangely since Parnia’s work is far less testimonial than Bruce’s. Does anyone have a contact with him? I can’t tell if this is just bad reporting but the fact Parnia Lab posted it confuses me more?

        Liked by 1 person

      • Charlie on said:

        The article really doesn’t offer much. It’s a shotgun approach with all the usual material explanations and refers to a “cascade effect” of just about everything chaotic that could happen (hypoxia, psychedelic drug release, etc) happening to form this beautiful experience for no real reason. The title is indeed clickbait

        Like

  44. Looks like he’s got a Netflix docuthing coming up judging by the latest Instagram posts.

    Like

    • Charlie on said:

      I have to think Netflix isn’t interested in a simple materialist explanation. That doesn’t sell tickets so to speak. But I’m also getting a bit wary of Dr. Parnia’s tendency to seek out the media spotlight

      Liked by 1 person

      • That’s not very kind Charlie…however, there is more than a grain of truth in it. Looks like he is the presenter in this one. Gobbling the spotlight. It is somewhat irksome.

        Like

    • Found it on Parnia Lab Youtube as well. Instagram keeps blanking out on me. I recognised Dr. Stephan Mayer, neurologist, as well (third guy). Not sure about the second, presumably a doctor. Fascinating Dr. Mary Neal is included in the trailer in that it hints the direction Sam is going.

      Liked by 1 person

  45. Parnia Lab posted a new video clip on Instagram for an upcoming movie I think.

    Like

    • Yes, just mentioned it. Probably Netflix or Prime.

      Like

      • I believe that’s Mary Neal in the trailer.

        Very non-materialist books about heaven after her NDE.

        But after the post earlier today and the article speaking about no afterlife I really don’t know what there aiming for.

        Even having her just for an NDE testimonial, it’s surprising to me they would choose someone like that.

        Like

  46. Michael DeCarli on said:

    I’ve read the Nautilus article a few times in the past. The whole article puts Dr. Parnia in a non materialistic light then the article goes on to say that the author of the article does not agree with Parnia’s non materialistic mind set. For Parnia lab to post this it’s a slap in the face to materialistic ideas around the NDE/RED. It’s awfully bod.

    THEN they promote a documentary that they created that includes Dr. Mary Neal. THE MOST OUTSPOKEN NON MATERIALISTIC SCIENTIST IN THIS WHOLE FIELD.

    Like

    • Michael DeCarli on said:

      There is no way Dr. Neal would allow herself and her VERY profound, personal, and quite frankly sad experience be put in a position to promote non materialistic viewpoints. She has debated Kevin Nelson even…

      Like

    • Maybe they’re trying to get both sides?

      Like

      • It does seem strange though.

        This is produced from NYU Langone. A prestigious, scientific, Medical center. Not a an episode on some Sci-fi network.

        The fact they would entertain non-materialist viewpoints would be pretty intriguing.

        Hope they actually have some new or interesting insight. Am slightly nervous we will just be back to where we are now based in how they’ve posted before.

        Liked by 1 person

  47. Vincent on said:

    It surprises me this was not postponed because of COVID. I’m not disappointed considering how small the sample is. To me, the true value of these studies remain the few outstanding qualitative cases, so I’ll wait for these. The methodology is very limited for multiple ethical, practical and technical issues. To my understanding, EEG is pretty faillible to start with so people will probably still argue on both sides that it didn’t measure right. Same goes for the cues. Anyways, great blog, keep up the good work!

    Liked by 1 person

Leave a Reply

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

WordPress.com Logo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: