I did promise…and results from BEWARE study.
I said I wouldn’t do any more posts on the Borjigin group’s study, I haven’t. As requested by some followers, I’ve created a video explaining why the claims made by Borjigin don’t stack up.
In addition to an analysis of the study I have been able to get exclusive access to the first readout from the BEWARE study!
If you like the video please like and share. Also, I spent over ninety quid buying Pinnacle so I could edit the video, so please buy and review my book as well 🙂 ( or buy me a coffee)
Please let me know if you think this is over the top and in any way a personal attack on Borjigin. I will change it if people do think that and explain why. The attack I make is on her conclusion, which I demonstrate to be false. (One regular has mentioned that this video feels a bit like an ad hominem attack on Borjigin’s beliefs – I have tried hard to avoid doing precisely that, although it was very tempting given the way she referred to Van Lommel’s work…something not shown in my video, but in her lecture, when she subtly implied that he made up the reports of a flatline EEG in the Pam Reynold’s case. My references to atheist research, and being wary about research that supports their position, were meant in general and not specific to her. I have many years experience in this field and in the origin of life research of atheists (and theists) who allow their bias to corrupt their interpretation and representation of facts. The truth is I cannot tell whether Borjigin deliberately or carelessly misrepresented the data from the coma patient study. Neither is good though.)
AwareofAware 
Am I seeing it correctly that the one time they registered no heartbeat on a patient (patient 3 I believe?) There was actually no EGG or at least no remarkable EEG change?
LikeLike
I would also note that in some cases you can have ECG activity (Sinus Rhythm or Junctional Rhythm for example) but no cardiac output. This is known as pulseless electrical activity (PEA). So it would be important to document if there was actually cardiac output present at the various measurement marks. This could have been accomplished by cardiac ultrasound, recording arterial blood pressures or even palpating for central pulses. ECG activity may or may not correlate to cardiac output.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for sharing taking time to create the video and to explain the Borjigin study. I’m not concerned so much with whether she is an atheist or not. I think targeting her personal beliefs is a bit of an ad hominem. I think you made a good case for why the case she presented should not be considered CA. I should add a disclaimer though that I don’t work in medicine and have not read the study personally.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Hi Pablo,
I get where you are coming from, and I tried my hardest to avoid making this an ad hominem attack on her, it was very tempting given the egregious nature of the falsehood promoted from this labs work, and very easy given how open the goal was.
My attack on atheism in this was not specific to her, it was very much meant to be a general comment, with a bit of humour, about the fact that some atheists, just like some theists, will bend or misrepresent facts to promote their beliefs. Her (probably) being atheist is central to understanding motivation behind why she might interpret the data the way she did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thank you for making the video.
Its bad enough what Borjigin tried to pull off (using something completely untrue about what cardiac arrest is), but for the journal editors and peer review process to let this go (as you correctly stated in the video) when this clear falsehood was staring them in the face so obviously, just goes to show how badly they will try to promote and advance their cause for atheism – despite atheism being completely false and in no way tenable.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I agree. The discussion is a key part of the paper and the line at the end of the first paragraph is a complete misrepresentation of the data.
If you watch the whole of Borjigin’s lecture, she also makes out that Van Lommel misrepresented Pan Reynold’s case, saying that there was no EEG data, when there was and a quick search of the internet shows that. She also comes up with a very bizarre theory in which she claims the brain shuts the heart down to preserve vital organs!! All well and good if her claims weren’t amplified by the compliant atheist media, but they were and as Goebels said, the more your repeat a lie, the more it will be regarded as truth.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think I agree with your general sentiment. I think people on both sides need to be open to all the possibilities. Like Einstein said instead of telling nature how it should behave we should be quiet and listen to what it’s saying. Unfortunately I don’t know the exact quote so I paraphrased it horribly probably. I received your book a few days ago and started reading it. I only scratched the surface but so far so good. I hope you have a good weekend!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Thanks Pablo, hope you enjoy the book. Some have said the first few chapters can be a bit heavy going…quite data heavy. Also, I am writing up a follow on book which is specific to my christian faith, and I have to say that some of my thinking on the implications of all of this has evolved somewhat.
You enjoy your weekend too!
LikeLiked by 1 person
Ben- Quick question. Has anyone else attempted to refute the claims made by Borjigin? Since she’s pulled some well known names into the fray, I was wondering if those selected individuals have composed a rebuttal.
By the way, great video. I wish it could shadow hers on all social media platforms as a community note to keep the public well informed.
LikeLiked by 2 people
I doubt that Van Lommel or Greyson have seen the video, or I suspect they would have entered the Frey. What she says about Van Lommel is particularly egregious making out that he made stuff up, when a quick search of the internet reveals she is wrong.
LikeLiked by 2 people
This just dropped from the nyulangone Instagram (Parnia Lab) account. I was having difficulty accessing the link that leads to the study, so I can’t make any specific connections to this conversation, although the title seemed relevant.
https://www.instagram.com/p/C7WwpQws3zK/
LikeLike
Now that I’ve read the fine print, maybe not as relevant as I had anticipated. Perhaps accessing the complete publication will determine the relevancy to NDEs. The nyulangone claims the link to the paper is in their bio, but I’ve gone through their labyrinthine link arrangement and had no luck in finding it.
LikeLike
The title did not make me think it was related to NDEs.
LikeLike
Just a point of note – you can be an atheist and believe in an afterlife and be a theist and not believe in an afterlife; think of the Sadducees who didn’t and they were sad, you see? (Sorry for the lame joke)
The issue here has more to do with a commitment to philosophical materialism and determinism (which science is falsely equated to in the popular press) where there has to be a deterministic, material explanation for everything and therefore the consciousness has to be an illusion, and an afterlife, free will, and intentionality all cannot exist. That is extremely destructive if society takes those claims seriously.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I understand your point, but I couldn’t make a study title out of materialists…the BEWMRE study doesn’t have the same ring to it 🙂
LikeLike
Here are the articles as a consequence, the problem that they write and you can’t even counteract them… there is no possibility of commenting under their page. https://reccom.org/pre-morte-cosa-accade-al-cervello/
LikeLike
isn’t this the same article that already came out in The Guardian?
LikeLike
Hi Ben, thanks for the video, I found it very helpful.
As you say in your video, it’s incredibly remiss of the peer reviewers and editor of Borijin’s paper to not pick up that she was conflating the cessation of breathing with cardiac arrest – do you know whether these issues have been raised with her and/or the peer reviewers or editor? And if so, what her response was?
LikeLiked by 2 people
Hi Phoebe,
I don’t know if these issues have been raised. I would like Greyson or Van Lommel to write a letter to PNAS and for it to be published. Would carry a lot of weight if it did.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I don’t understand why Borijin hasn’t addressed her flaws in her argument here. Is it just not that of a big deal to her and the scientific community at large? I don’t get it.
LikeLike
If you watch the entire video of her lecture, you may understand why she doesn’t. She loses all balance when talking about Van Lommel’s research, and makes out that he was misleading people regarding Pam Reynolds NDE and the EEG data, when a quick search of the internet shows that Sabom stated the EEG was flatlining (she says Sabom never said this, but his name is lead author on a paper saying this).
I do wonder if it is deliberate. She is trying, somewhat successfully, to create a narrative that NDEs are not evidence of the existence of an eternal soul, and are in fact a product of brain activity. I believe that she is probably a hardcore atheist. Her name is Monogolian, so she was possibly raised in communist China, and maybe she has an agenda to promote atheist ideology. Who knows, but if she isn’t deliberately misleading people, she is ignorant of basic medical scientific facts. Neither is good. There is evidence for the latter when she discusses her BEARS hypothesis which is all well and good until she says that the brain deliberately shuts down the heart to protect vital functions. I nearly fell out of my chair when she said that!
PNAS should hang their heads in shame for allowing her say what she did.
LikeLiked by 2 people
letter from S Parnia in response to Martial
https://www.resuscitationjournal.com/article/S0300-9572(24)00098-4/fulltext
LikeLiked by 1 person
I think he makes some good points. This is an academic spat over terminology, and the way Martial denigrates the quality of his scientific research. I somewhat agree with Martial on her comments about use of the term RED…I understand why he created it, and if it were considered as a subset of NDEs specific to those who have a proven experience while clinically dead, it is accurate, but otherwise it is a bit too rigid, and given that the reason Tim no longer comes here is because of the row we had over it (and my rudeness), I will leave it there.
On his defence of his techniques and conclusions, he is right to say what he does. I also like that he is already holding Martial’s feet to the fire on the design of her study. I have been thinking about this already, and how easy it would be for an atheist with an agenda to create a study that they claim disproves NDEs. She has already revealed some of this inbalance by stating that 69% of people who have CAs have NDEs, can’t remember where I saw that(do you have the ref?) but it immediately stuck as we all know 69% is absolute nonsense. So this is the way I see it going:
Hypothesis: NDEs are a result of brain activity, and OBEs are not real.
Experiment: 69% of CA patients have NDEs. 25% have OBEs. Put targets high up in a resuscitation suite and If NDEs are real then some people would see the targets during their OBEs. Conversely, If NDEs are not real, no one would see the targets. Sample size – 100 CAs. given that 69 patients should have NDEs, and of these at least 17 should have OBEs, if no patient recalls seeing the target then OBEs did not occur and NDEs are proven false.
LikeLike
Good article. It really sums up Dr. Parnia research. I enjoyed watching Rethinking death and Im looking forward to reading Dr. Parnia new book Lucid Dying when it comes out August 6 on amazon
LikeLiked by 2 people
As Borjigin’s research involved animals, I thought it would be appropriate to ask another question about animals and consciousness: How do we explain the associative learning behaviours of lifeforms without brains, which seem to clearly show a link between neurons and learning at a level more primative than a CNS.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Talking of research of animal cognition, i.e. rats and eegs at the point of death, what are the implications of complex behaviours and associative learning in primitive lifeforms like jellyfish?
Materalists would argue if consciousness isn’t made by the brain all we’d only need a primitive nervous system, but the fact only those species with advanced brains have consciousness shows that it is made by the brain.
Ben how would you make sense of this, and argue against the materialist.View?
LikeLiked by 1 person
My answer to that would be that to host a consciousness and engage with the material world in the way that we do requires an advanced brain.
LikeLike
That makes sense, yet advanced behaviours and learning in brainless animals shows that some advanced cognition doesn’t need advanced neurology.
Your understanding is that as neurous systems and brains become more advanced it allows more advanced interactions between consciousness and the material world.
Sorry if this is confused, I’m trying to make sense of the latest developments in animal biology.
LikeLike
Give me an example of advanced cognition in brainless animals. Curious about that one.
LikeLike
It was of associative learning in Carribean jellyfish published in Current Biology in either November or December 2023.
LikeLike
Machines can learn, but they are not conscious. Conscious awareness is a very different ball game.
LikeLike
Then that raises the question of why did a connection to consciousness evolve, effectively creating.a new hard problem.
LikeLike
What do you mean by “why did a connection to consciousness evolve?” Are you talking about evolution from Jellyfish to complex CNS containing animals?
LikeLike
Yes, at what point along that evolutionary line did conscious awareness arise and why?
LikeLike
Despite being related to Charles Darwin and having a Ph.D. in organic chemistry, I am agnostic, even sceptical, on the viability of the evolution of new phenotypes and species through random errors in the genetic code and natural selection. Now I am no expert on evolutionary biology, but the reason I am sceptical about macro evolution is that I spent 13 years in HIV, so understand a fair bit about micro evolution whereby a virus can bypass drug activity by a random change in the genetic code, but a naive cocktail of viruses cannot bypass triple therapy because the likelihood of there being a single virion with three mutations conferring resistance to 3 different drugs is exceptionally low to non-existent.
When you transfer this understanding of evolution by stepwise genetic changes, the only way that evolution can occur (and exchange of genes in bacteria is a red herring on the topic), then the understanding that huge leaps in function or form within a species, or the evolution of entirely new species, becomes exceedingly unlikely, even given the timeframes involved. It requires that a single mutation in the DNA code or combination of a few mutations at best must both confer a sufficient survival advantage over the existing genetic code to ensure dominance, and at the same time not contain fatal faults. but like I said, I am not sufficiently expert to argue this point in much more detail. I am aware however that a recent meeting of the Royal Society, Darwinian evolution was seriously questioned as explaining the big changes, so experts are nervous about it.
Then you add into this my understanding from detailed research, and a higher degree of expertise on the topic of the origin of life, and the book I published on this DNA: The Elephant in the Lab which showed that it was not possible for life to emerge from simple chemicals by natural means, and the DNA code provides evidence for intelligence, and you will understand why I am of the view that species with the capacity to “host” consciousness most likely did not emerge through a natural evolutionary process. Then add in my faith in God, and you can see where I am going with this 🙂
I do not believe consciousness evolved, and if you believe, based on the compelling evidence, that consciousness survives death, as I and many others do, then it all bets are off regarding its origins and nature.
LikeLike
The last two paragraphs I can get behind. Guided initation of the first life makes sense, and that consciousness is not made by the body. I was trying to understand how a connection between brain and consciousness come from.
Evolution, in some form, very much exists with cases of evolution occurring right now, from moths to swallows and even otter skulls in Scotland. With that will have to agree to disagree.
LikeLiked by 1 person
Like I said, my position on evolution is somewhat based on limited reading on the subject and my observations of micro evolution. I slant towards suspecting it is unlikely to have happened in an unguided manner because of my position on the origin of life, of which I am absolutely certain, and my faith. I am not sufficiently engaged in the topic otherwise to argue about it, and accept that my intuition on it may be wrong. But given you agree on the Origin of life, and the nature of consciousness, then we are really coming from the same place.
On the connection of the consciousness and brain, again given the lack of theory or evidence, I definitely leap for the God of the gaps explanation. In fact I would go further and say that the brain does not really exist, like all matter, and is illusory. Not to say I believe in idealism, but our understanding of the reality of a brain is based on us living inside this created, illusory world, and experiencing from the perspective of being material beings. The existence of the brain itself could be a trick into making us think that the material world is real and that we need the brain to interact with it!
Anyway, think about that too long and you go bonkers!
I am not sure that it is entirely possible to make absolute sense of the connection between the brain and the body.
LikeLike
My last reply probably came across as a bit bonkers. I am currently finishing a new book on NDEs looking at through them a Christian lens, and in the chapter I have been most recently working on I have been contemplating the nature of “reality” in the light of what we learn from NDEs, the Bible and Quantum Mechanics. I understand why some may lean towards philosophical idealism, that isn’t my conclusion, but it is reasonable to understand that this existence is not “real” as we understand reality to be, although experience is real. NDEs say as much. The Bible suggests it in an obtuse way. Quantum Mechanic. Hints at it.
LikeLike
The idea that organisms (which contain helix-like cylindrical structures) don’t have experience… is nutty.
LikeLike
I think this just proves that people are scared of any form of eternal life. Even if there is evidence in any capacity they will find excuses to deny it and just want to be deleted. For me though I’d gladly accept life. Erasure scares me.
LikeLiked by 1 person
hi, I just watched your video and you’ve clearly destroyed her claims. Nnice bit of comedy too – the bright light and camera change was terrific! I’m curious if anyone else caught this error? She seemed so smug I can’t help but wish she was torn apart in peer review.
LikeLiked by 1 person
She deserves it, that’s for sure.
LikeLike